A parliament is a legislature, especially in those countries whose system of government is based on the Westminster system modeled after that of the United Kingdom. The name is derived from the Frenchparlement, the action of parler (to speak): a parlement is a discussion. The term came to mean a meeting at which such a discussion took place. It acquired its modern meaning as it came to be used for the body of people (in an institutional sense) who would meet to discuss matters of state.

A nation's prime minister ("PM") is almost always the leader of the majority party in the lower house of parliament, but only holds his or her office as long as the "confidence of the house" is maintained. If members of the lower house lose faith in the leader for whatever reason, they can often call a vote of no confidence and force the PM to resign. This can be particularly dangerous to a government when the distribution of seats is relatively even, in which case a new election is often called shortly thereafter. However, in case of general discontent with the head of government, his replacement can be made very smoothly without all the complications that it represents in the case of a Presidentialist system.

Origins of parliamentary government

India

Ancient Indian, Vedic texts mention of two Parliament-like gatherings of the Indo-Aryan kingdoms called the Sabhā and the Samiti. During the time of the Buddha, many states were forms of republics, called the Sanghas. The Sabha has been interpreted by the historians as a representative assembly of the elect—the important men of the clan, which ran day-to-day business with the king. The Samiti seems to be a gathering of all the male members of the kingdom, and probably convened only for the ratification/election of a new king. The two largely democratic institutions, which kept a check on the absolutism of the king, were given a sacred position, and have been called the daughters of the deity Prajapati in the Vedas, the holiest of all Hindu scriptures and the earliest Indo-European literature. However, these democratic institutions became weaker as republics became larger and elected chieftainship moved towards hereditary and absolute monarchy. The Sabha and the Samiti bear almost no mention in later literature. After this, India would not have any democratic legislature till the British times[citation needed], with such bodies as the Central Legislative Assembly, a step in the direction of the modern democratic Parliament of India, the two Houses of which still bear the ancient name of Sabha.

Caliphate

Traditional SunniIslamic lawyers agree that shura, loosely translated as 'consultation of the people', was a function of the Caliphate, where the Majlis al Shura (consultative council, or parliament) advised the caliph. The importance of this is premised by the following verses of the Qur'an:

“...those who answer the call of their Lord and establish the prayer, and who conduct their affairs by Shura. [are loved by God]”[42:38]

“...consult them (the people) in their affairs. Then when you have taken a decision (from them), put your trust in Allah”[3:159]

The majlis is also the means to elect a new caliph. Al-Mawardi has written that members of the majlis should satisfy three conditions: they must be just, they must have enough knowledge to distinguish a good caliph from a bad one, and must have sufficient wisdom and judgment to select the best caliph. Al-Mawardi also said in emergencies when there is no caliphate and no majlis, the people themselves should create a majlis, select a list of candidates for caliph, then the majlis should select from the list of candidates.[1] Some modern interpretations of the role of the Majlis al Shura include those by Islamist author Sayyid Qutb and by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, the founder of a transnational political movement devoted to the revival of the Caliphate. In an analysis of the shura chapter of the Qur'an, Qutb argued Islam requires only that the ruler consult with at least some of the ruled (usually the elite), within the general context of God-made laws that the ruler must execute. Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, writes that Shura is important and part of the "the ruling structure" of the Islamic caliphate, "but not one of its pillars," and may be neglected without the Caliphate's rule becoming unIslamic. Non-Muslims may serve in the majlis, though they may not vote or serve as an official.

England

England has long had a tradition of a body of men who would assist and advise the King on important matters. Under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, there was an advisory council, the Witenagemot ("meeting of wise men"). As part of the Norman Conquest of England, the new King, William I, did away with the Witenagemot, replacing it with a Curia Regis ("King's Council"). Membership of the Curia was largely restricted to the tenants in chief, the few nobles who "rented" great estates directly from the King, along with certain senior ecclesiastics.

Most historians date the emergence of a parliament with some degree of power to which the throne had to defer no later than the rule of Edward I. (Kaeuper, Richard W., War Justice and Public Order: England and France in the Later Middle Ages, Oxford U. Press, 1988.) Like previous kings, Edward called leading nobles and church leaders to discuss government matters, especially finance. A meeting in 1295 became known as the Model Parliament because it set the pattern for later Parliaments. The significant difference between the Model Parliament and the earlier Curia Regis was the addition of the Commons, that is, elected representatives of rural landowners and of townsmen. In 1307, Edward I agreed not to collect certain taxes without consent of the realm. He also enlarged the court system.

The tenants-in-chief often struggled with their spiritual counterparts (Christian Humphreys) and with the King for power. In 1215, they secured from John the Magna Carta, which established that the King may not levy or collect any taxes (except the feudal taxes to which they were hitherto accustomed), save with the consent of a council. It was also established that the most important tenants-in-chief and ecclesiastics be summoned to the council by personal writs from the Sovereign, and that all others be summoned to the council by general writs from the sheriffs of their counties. Modern government has its origins in the Curia Regis; parliament descends from the Great Council later known as the parliamentum established by Magna Carta.

The purpose and structure of parliament in Tudor England underwent a significant transformation under the reign of Henry VIII. Originally its methods were primarily medieval and the monarch still had inarguable dominion over the decisions. According to Elton, it was Cromwell who then initiated the beginnings of change within parliament. He said ‘there was created a revised machinery of government whose principle was bureaucratic organization in the place of the personal control of the King’s estate.' The power of the monarch was considerably lessened, instead becoming the rule of 'King-in-Parliament', a balanced fusion of the two bodies in order to establish a more effective course of reign. This was the basis of the first ever constitutional monarchy in England, a system which is still in effect today.

The Reformation Acts gave parliament unlimited power over the country, and authority over every matter, be it social, economic, political or even religious; it legalised the Reformation, officially and indisputably. The King had to rule through the council, not over it, and there had to be mutual agreement when creating or passing laws, changing religions or adjusting taxes. The monarch no longer had sole control over the country. For instance, during the later years of Mary, the parliament originally rejected Mary's intent to revise Catholicism, and even later, denied Elizabeth her request for marriage. If parliament had had this power before Cromwell, during Wolsey's reign as Secretary, the reformation may never have happened as the king would have had to gain the consent of all parliament members before so drastically changing the country's religious laws. Another change that followed Cromwell's parliamentary interventions was that under the reign of Edward VI, parliament was used far more commonly than under Henry VIII; seven sessions in the six and a half years that Edward ruled.

The effectiveness of parliament considerably increased after Cromwell's adjustments. It gave the country an unprecedented stability when dealing with dynastic complications, such as a minor king or the lack of a suitable heir. When an acceptable monarch was not available, the changes in government meant that the country could still run efficiently through the parliament, without having to succumb to civil war. Management and organisation was also improved and parliamentary procedure was documented, statutes printed. The fact that the monarch was suddenly dependent on another political body meant that decisions were more thoroughly considered and the rash whims of Henry VIII were trivialised and reduced. He could not establish supremacy by proclamation; he needed the parliament to enforce statute, to add felonies and treasons. One of the main liberties of parliament was its freedom of speech; Henry allowed anything to be spoken openly within parliament and the speakers were not allowed to be arrested, a fact which they exploited incessantly. Despite this fact however, parliament held very little objection to the desires of the monarch, and under Henry and Edward's reign it complied willingly to the majority of the Kings' decisions.

As Williams described it, 'King and parliament were not separate entities, but a single body, of which the monarch was the senior partner and the Lords and the Commons the lesser, but still essential, members.'

France

Originally, there was only the Parliament of Paris, born out of the Curia Regis in 1307, and located inside the medieval royal palace, now the Paris Hall of Justice. The jurisdiction of the Parliament of Paris covered the entire kingdom. In the thirteenth century, judicial functions were added. In 1443, following the turmoil of the Hundred Years' War, King Charles VII of France granted Languedoc its own parliament by establishing the Parliament of Toulouse, the first parliament outside of Paris, whose jurisdiction extended over the most part of southern France. From 1443 until the French Revolution several other parliaments were created in some provinces of France (Grenoble, Bordeaux).

All the parliaments could issue regulatory decrees for the application of royal edicts or of customary practices; they could also refuse to register laws that they judged contrary to fundamental law or simply as being untimely. Parliamentary power in France was suppressed more so than in England as a result of absolutism, and parliaments were eventually overshadowed by the larger Estates General, up until the French Revolution, when the National Assembly became the lower house of France's bicameral legislature.

Scotland

From the 10th century the Kingdom of Alba was ruled by chiefs (toisechs) and subkings (mormaers) under the suzerainty, real or nominal, of a High King. Popular assemblies, as in Ireland, were involved in law-making, and sometimes in king-making, although the introduction of tanistry—naming a successor in the lifetime of a king—made the second less than common. These early assemblies cannot be considered "parliaments" in the later sense of the word, and were entirely separate from the later, Norman-influenced, institution.

By the early fourteenth century the attendance of knights and freeholders had become important, and from 1326 burgh commissioners attended. Consisting of the Three Estates; of clerics, lay tenants-in-chief and burgh commissioners sitting in a single chamber, the Scottish parliament acquired significant powers over particular issues. Most obviously it was needed for consent for taxation (although taxation was only raised irregularly in Scotland in the medieval period), but it also had a strong influence over justice, foreign policy, war, and all manner of other legislation, whether political, ecclesiastical, social or economic. Parliamentary business was also carried out by "sister" institutions, before c. 1500 by General Council and thereafter by the Convention of Estates. These could carry out much business also dealt with by Parliament — taxation, legislation and policy-making — but lacked the ultimate authority of a full parliament.

The term "sejm" comes from an old Polish expression denoting a meeting of the populace. The power of early sejms grew between 1146–1295, when the power of individual rulers waned and various councils and wiece grew stronger. The history of the national Sejm dates back to 1182. Since the 14th century irregular sejms (described in various Latin sources as contentio generalis, conventio magna, conventio solemna, parlamentum, parlamentum generale, dieta or Polish sejm walny) have been called by Polish kings. From 1374, the king had to receive sejm permission to raise taxes. The General Sejm (Polish Sejm Generalny or Sejm Walny), first convoked by the king John I Olbracht in 1493 near Piotrków, evolved from earlier regional and provincial meetings (sejmiks). It followed most closely the sejmik generally, which arose from the 1454 Nieszawa Statutes, granted to the szlachta (nobles) by King Casimir IV the Jagiellonian. From 1493 forward, indirect elections were repeated every two years. With the development of the unique Polish Golden Liberty the Sejm's powers increased.

The Commonwealth's general parliament consisted of three estates: the King of Poland (who also acted as the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Russia/Ruthenia, Prussia, Mazovia, etc.), the Senat (consisting of Ministers, Palatines, Castellans and Bishops) and the Chamber of Envoys—circa 170 nobles (szlachta) acting on behalf of their Lands and sent by Land Parliaments. Also representatives of selected cities but without any voting powers. Since 1573 at a royal election all peers of the Commonwealth could participate in the Parliament and become the King's electors.

Nordic and Germanic development

Iceland's parliament House, at Austurvöllur in Reykjavík, built in 1880–1881. Home of one of the oldest still-acting parliaments in the world.

A thing or ting (Old Norse and Icelandic: þing; other modern Scandinavian: ting, ding in Dutch) was the governing assembly in Germanic societies, made up of the free men of the community and presided by lawspeakers. Today the term lives on in the official names of national legislatures, political and judicial institutions in the North-Germanic countries. In the Yorkshire and former Danelaw areas of England, which were subject to much Norse invasion and settlement, the wapentake was another name for the same institution.

The thing was the assembly of the free men of a country, province or a hundred(hundare/härad/herred). There were consequently, hierarchies of things, so that the local things were represented at the thing for a larger area, for a province or land. At the thing, disputes were solved and political decisions were made. The place for the thing was often also the place for public religious rites and for commerce.

The thing met at regular intervals, legislated, elected chieftains and kings, and judged according to the law, which was memorized and recited by the "law speaker" (the judge).

Later national diets with chambers for different estates developed, e.g. in Sweden and in Finland (which was part of Sweden until 1809), each with a House of Knights for the nobility. In both these countries, the national parliaments are now called riksdag (in Finland also eduskunta), a word used since the Middle Ages and equivalent of the German word Reichstag.

Novgorod and Pskov

The veche was the highest legislature and judicial authority in the republic of Novgorod until 1478. In its sister state, Pskov, a separate veche operated until 1510.

Since the Novgorod revolution of 1137 ousted the ruling grand prince, the veche became the supreme state authority. After the reforms of 1410, the veche was restructured on a model similar to that of Venice, becoming the Commons chamber of the parliament. Аn upper Senate-like Council of Lords was also created, with title membership for all former city magistrates. Some sources indicate that veche membership may have became full-time, and parliament deputies were now called vechniks. It is recounted that the Novgorod assembly could be summoned by anyone who rung the veche bell, although it is more likely that the common procedure was more complex. This bell was a symbol of republican sovereignty and independence. The whole population of the city—boyars, merchants, and common citizens—then gatheredat Yaroslav's Court. Separate assemblies could be held in the districts of Novgorod. In Pskov the veche assembled in the court of the Trinity cathedral.

Spain

Although there are documented councils held in 873, 1020, 1050 and 1063, there was no representation of commoners. What is considered to be the first Spanish Parliament (with the presence of commoners), Cortes - was held in the Kingdom of Leon in 1118. Prelates, nobles and commoners met separately in the three estates of the Cortes. In this meeting new laws were approved to protect commoners against the arbitrarities of nobles, prelates and the king. This important set of laws is known as the "Carta Magna Leonesa"

After the union of the Kingdoms of Leon and Castile under the Crown of Castile, their Cortes were united as well in 1258. The Castilian Cortes had representatives from Burgos, Toledo, León, Seville, Córdoba, Murcia, Jaén, Zamora, Segovia, Ávila, Salamanca, Cuenca, Toro, Valladolid, Soria, Madrid, Guadalajara and Granada (after 1492). The Cortes' assent was required to pass new taxes, and could also advise the king on other matters. The comunero rebels intended a stronger role for the Cortes, but were defeated by the forces of Habsburg Emperor Charles V in 1521. The Cortes maintained some power, however, though it became more of a consultative entity. However, by the time of King Philip II, Charles's son, the Castilian Cortes had come under functionally complete royal control, with its delegates dependent on the Crown for their income.[2]

The Roman Catholic Church

"Conciliarism" or the "conciliar movement", was a reform movement in the 14th and 15th century Roman Catholic Church which held that final authority in spiritual matters resided with the Roman Church as corporation of Christians, embodied by a general church council, not with the pope. In effect, the movement sought - ultimately, in vain - to create an All-Catholic Parliament. Its struggle with the Papacy had many points in common with the struggle of parliaments in specific countries against the authority of Kings and other secular rulers.

Parliaments of the United Kingdom

The British Parliament is often referred to as the Mother of Parliaments (in fact a misquotation of John Bright, who remarked in 1865 that "England is the Mother of Parliaments") because the British Parliament has been the model for most other parliamentary systems, and its Acts have created many other parliaments. Many nations with parliaments have to some degree emulated the British "three-tier" model. Most countries in Europe and the Commonwealth have similarly organized parliaments with a largely ceremonial head of state who formally opens and closes parliament, a large elected lower house and a smaller, upper house.

In the United Kingdom, Parliament consists of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the Monarch. The House of Commons is composed of 646 members who are directly elected by British (or Irish) citizens to represent single-member constituencies. The leader of a Party that wins more than half the seats or less than half but can count on support of smaller parties to achieve enough support to pass law is invited by the Queen to form a government. Legally the Queen is the head of government and no business in Parliament can be taken without her authority. The House of Lords is a body of long-serving, unelected members: 92 of whom inherit their titles (and of whom 90 are elected internally by members of the House to lifetime seats), 26 bishops while they remain in office, and 588 of whom have been appointed to lifetime seats.

Legislation can originate from either the Lords or the Commons. It is voted on in several distinct stages, called readings, in each house. First reading is merely a formality. Second reading is where the bill as a whole is considered. Third reading is detailed consideration of clauses of the bill.

In addition to the three readings a bill also goes through a committee stage where it is considered in great detail. Once the bill has been passed by one house it goes to the other and essentially repeats the process. If after the two sets of readings there are disagreements between the versions that the two houses passed it is returned to the first house for consideration of the amendments made by the second. If it passes through the amendment stage Royal Assent is granted and the bill becomes law as an Act of Parliament.

The House of Lords is the less powerful of the two houses as a result of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. These Acts removed the veto power of the Lords over a great deal of legislation. If a bill is certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons as a money bill (i.e. acts raising taxes and similar) then the Lords can only block it for a month. If an ordinary bill originates in the Commons the Lords can only block it for a maximum of one session of Parliament. The exceptions to this rule are things like bills to prolong the life of a Parliament beyond five years.

In addition to functioning as the second chamber of Parliament, the House of Lords was also the final court of appeal for much of the law of the United Kingdom—a combination of judicial and legislative function that recalls its origin in the Curia Regis. This changed in October 2009 when the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom opened and acquired the former jurisdiction of the House of Lords.

Since 1998, there has been a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, which is a national, unicameral legislature for Scotland. However, the Scottish Parliament does not have complete power over Scottish Politics, as it only holds the powers which were devolved to it by Westminster in 1997. It cannot legislate on defence issues, currency, or national taxation (e.g. VAT, or Income Tax).

Subnational parliamentary government

Canada

Australia

Belgium

In the federal (bicameral) kingdom of Belgium, there is a curious asymmetrical constellation serving as directly elected legislatures for three "territorial" regions—Flanders (Dutch), Brussels (bilingual, certain peculiarities of competence, also the only region not comprising any of the 10 provinces) and Wallonia (French)—and three cultural communities—Flemish (Dutch, competent in Flanders and for the Dutch-speaking inhabitants of Brussels), Francophone (French, for Wallonia and for Francophones in Brussels) and German (for speakers of that language in a few designated municipalities in the east of the Walloon Region, living alongside Francophones but under two different regimes)

Vlaams Parliament ("Flemish Parliament"; originally styled Vlaamse Raad "Flemish Council") served both the Flemish Community (whose same it uses) and, in application of a Belgian constitutional option, of the region of Flanders (in all matters of regional competence, its decisions have no effect in Brussels)

within the capital's regional assembly however, there also exist two so-called Community Commissions (fixed numbers, not an automatic repartition of the regional assembly), a Dutch-speaking one and a Francophone one, for various matters split up by linguistic community but under Brussels' regional competence, and even 'joint community commissions' consisting of both for certain institutions that could be split up but are not.

From LoveToKnow 1911

PARLIAMENT (Anglo-Lat.
parliamentum, Fr. parlement, from
parler, to speak), the name given to the supreme
legislature of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland. (For the old French
parlement, see Parlement; and for
analogous foreign assemblies see the articles on their respective
countries.) The word is found in English from the 13th century,
first f. or a debate, then for a formal conference, and for the
great councils of the Plantagenet kings; and the modern sense has
come to be applied retrospectively. William the Conqueror is said
in the Chronicle to have had " very deep speech with his Witan "; this " deep speech " (in
Latincolloquium, in
French parlement) was the distinguishing feature of a
meeting between king and people, and thus gave its name to the
national assembly itself. The Statute of Westminster (1275) first uses " parlement "
of the great council in England.

The British Parliament consists of the King (or Queen regnant),
the Lords spiritual and temporal, and the Commons 1; and it meets
in two houses, the House of Lords (the Upper or Second chamber) and
the House of Commons.

The Crown, pre-eminent in
rank a,nd dignity, is the legal source of parliamentary authority.
The sovereign virtually appoints the lords spiritual, and all the
peerages of the lords temporal have been created by the Crown. The
king summons parliament to
meet, and prescribes the time and place of its meeting, prorogues
and dissolves it, and commands the issue of writs for the election
of members of the House of Commons. By several statutes, beginning
with the 4 Edward III.
c. 14, the annual meeting of parliament had been ordained; but
these statutes, continually disregarded, were virtually repealed in
the reigns of Charles
II. and William and Mary (16
Ch. II. 31; 6 & 7 Will. & Mary, 32). The present statute
law merely exacts the meeting of parliament once in three years;
but the annual voting of supplies has long since superseded
obsolete statutes. When parliament is assembled it cannot proceed
to business until the king has declared the causes of summons, in
person or by commission; and though the veto of the Crown on legislation has long been
obsolete, bills passed by the two houses only become law on
receiving the royal assent.

The House of Lords is distinguished by peculiar dignities,
privileges and jurisdictions. Peers individually enjoy the rank and
precedence of their
several dignities, and are hereditary councillors of the Crown.
Collectively with the lords spiritual they form a permanent council
of the Crown; and, when assembled in parliament, they form the
highest court of judicature in the
realm, and are (in
constitutional theory at all events) a co-equal branch of the
legislature, without whose consent no laws can be made (see below,
House of Lords Question). Their judicature is of various
kinds, viz. for the trial of peers; for determining claims of peerage and offices of honour,
under references from the Crown; for the trial of controverted
elections of Scotch and Irish peers; for the final determination of
appeals from courts in England, Scotland and Ireland; and lastly, for the trial of
impeachments.

The House of Commons also has its own peculiar privileges and
jurisdictions. Above all, it has the paramount right of originating the imposition of all taxes,
and the granting of supplies for the service of the state. It has
also enjoyed, from early times, the right of determining all
matters concerning the 1 Or rather, the representatives of the
Commons (see Representation); but the term has long been used for
the deputies themselves collectively.

election of its own members, and their right to sit and vote in
parliament. This right, however, has been greatly abridged, as, in
1868, the trial of controverted elections was transferred to the
courts of law; but its jurisdiction in matters of election, not
otherwise provided for by statute, is still retained intact. As
part of this jurisdiction the house directs the Speaker to issue warrants to the clerk of the
Crown to make out new writs for the election of members to fill up
such vacancies as occur during the sitting of parliament.

Privileges of Parliament

Both houses are in the enjoyment of certain privileges, designed
to maintain their authority, independence and dignity. These
privileges are founded mainly upon the law and custom of
parliament, while some have been confirmed, and others abridged or
abrogated by statute. The Lords rely entirely upon their inherent
right, as having " a place and voice in parliament "; but, by a
custom dating from the 6th Henry VIII., the Commons lay
claim, by humble petition
to the Crown at the commencement of every parliament, " to their
ancient and undoubted rights and privileges." Each house has its
separate rights and jurisdictions; but privileges properly
so-called, being founded upon the law and custom of parliament, are
common to both houses. Each house adjudges whether any breach of privilege has been
committed, and punishes offenders by censure or commitment. This right of
commitment is incontestably established, and it extends to the
protection of officers of the house, lawfully and properly
executing its orders, who are also empowered to call in the
assistance of the civil power. The causes of such commitments
cannot be inquired into by courts of law, nor can prisoners be
admitted to bail. Breaches of
privilege may be summarized as disobedience to any orders or rules
of the house, indignities offered to its character or proceedings,
assaults, insults, or libels upon members, or interference with
officers of the house in discharge of their duty, or tampering with
witnesses.. Such offences are dealt with as contempts, according to
the circumstances of the respective cases, of which numerous
precedents are to be found in the journals of both houses. The
Lords may imprison for a fixed period, and impose fines; the
Commons can only imprison generally, the commitment being concluded
by the prorogation,
and have long discontinued the imposition of fines.

Freedom of speech has been one of the most cherished privileges
of parliament from early times. Constantly asserted, and often
violated, it was finally declared by the Bill of Rights " that the freedom of
speech, and debates and proceedings in parliament, ought not to be
impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament."
Such a privilege is essential to the independence of parliament,
and to the protection of members in discharge of their duties. But,
while it protects members from molestation elsewhere, it leaves
them open to censure or other punishment by the house itself,
whenever they abuse their privilege and transgress the rules of
orderly debate.

Freedom from arrest is a
privilege of the highest antiquity. It was formerly of extended
scope, but has been reduced, by later legislation, within very
narrow limits. Formerly not only the persons of members but their
goods were protected, and their privilege extended to their
servants. At present members are themselves free from arrest, but
otherwise they are liable to all the processes of the courts. If
arrested, they will be immediately discharged, upon motion in the
court whence the process issued. Peers and peeresses are, by the
privilege of peerage, free from arrest at all times. Members of the
House of Commons are free only for forty days after prorogation and
forty days before the next appointed meeting; but prorogations are
so arranged as to ensure a continuance of the privilege. Formerly,
even suits against members were stayed, but this offensive
privilege has been abolished by statute. Exemption from attending
as witnesses upon subpoena, once an acknowledged privilege, is no
longer insisted upon; but immunity from service upon juries is at once
an ancient privilege and a statutory right. The privilege of
freedom from arrest is limited to civil causes, and has not been
suffered to exempt members from the operation of the criminal law, nor
even from commitments for contempt by other courts. But, whenever
the freedom of a member is so interfered with, the courts are
required immediately to inform the house of the causes of his
commitment. Witnesses, suitors, counsel and agents in attendance
upon parliament are protected from arrest and molestation, and from
the consequences of statements made by them, or other proceedings
in the conduct of their cases.

As both houses, in enforcing their privileges, are obliged to
commit offenders or otherwise interfere with the liberty of the
subject, the exercise of these privileges has naturally been called
in question before the courts. Each house is the sole judge of its own privileges; but
the courts are bound to administer the law, and, where law and
privilege have seemed to be at variance, a conflict of jurisdiction
has arisen between parliament and the courts. Many interesting
controversies have arisen upon such occasions; but of late years
privilege has been carefully restrained within the proper limits of
the law, and the courts have amply recognized the authority of
parliament.

Parliamentary Procedure

It will be convenient here to sketch the general lines of
procedure. On the day appointed by royal proclamation for the meeting of a new
parliament both houses assemble in their respective chambers, when
the Lords Commissioners for opening the parliament summon the
Commons to the bar of the
House of Lords, by the mouth of Black Rod, to hear the commission read. The
lord chancellor states that, when the members of both houses shall
be sworn, the king will declare the causes of his calling this
parliament; and, it being necessary that a Speaker of the House of
Commons shall be first chosen, the Commons are directed to proceed
to the appointment of a Speaker, and to present him, on the
following day, for His Majesty's royal approbation. The Commons at
once withdraw to their own house and proceed to the election of
their Speaker. The next day the Speaker-elect proceeds, with the
house, to the House of Lords, and, on receiving the royal
approbation, lays claim, in the accustomed form, on behalf of the
Commons, " to their ancient and undoubted rights and privileges."
The Speaker, now fully confirmed, returns to the House of Commons,
and, after repeating his acknowledgments, reminds the house that
the first thing to be done is to take and subscribe the oath
required by law. Having first taken the oath himself, he is
followed by other members, who come to the table to be sworn. The
swearing of members in
both houses proceeds from day to day, until the greater number have
taken the oath, or affirmation, when the causes of summons are
declared by His Majesty in
person, or by commission, in " the King's speech." This speech
being considered in both houses, an Address (q.v.) in answer is
agreed to, which is presented to His Majesty by the whole house, or
by " the lords with white staves " in one house and privy
councillors in the other.

The debate on the
Address being over, the real business of the session now commences: the committees of supply
and ways and means are set up; bills are introduced; motions are
made; committees are appointed; and both houses are, at once, in
full activity. The Lord Chancellor presides over the deliberations
of the Lords, and the Speaker over those of the Commons. A quorum of the House of Lords,
including the chancellor, is three (thirty for divisions); that of
the House of Commons, including the Speaker, is forty.

Every matter is determined, in both houses, upon questions put
from the chair, and resolved in the affirmative or negative, or
otherwise disposed of by the withdrawal of the motion, by
amendments, by the adjournment of the house, by reading the orders of the day,
or by the previous question. Notices are required to be given of
original motions; and the different stages of bills, and other
matters appointed for consideration by the house, stand as orders
of the day. Questions of privilege are allowed precedence of all
the business on any day; but this rule, being liable to grave
abuses, is guarded by strict limitations. Debates arise when a
question has been proposed from the chair; and at the close of the
debate (for the " closure "
in the House of Commons, see below, House of Commons, Internal
Reforms) the question is put, with or without amendment, as the case may
be, and is determined, when necessary, by a division. No question
or bill, substantially the same as one upon which the judgment of
the house has already been given, may be again proposed during the
same session.

Members claim to be heard in debate by rising in their places.
When more than one member rises at the same time, in the Lords the
member who is to speak is called by the house, in the Commons by
the Speaker. Every member, when called, is bound to speak to the
question before the house; and calls to order are very frequent. A
member may speak once only to any question, except to explain, or
upon a point of order, or to reply when a member has himself
submitted a motion to the house, or when an amendment has been
moved which constitutes a new question. He may not refer to past
debates, nor to debates in the other house; nor may he refer to any
other member by name, or use offensive and disorderly language
against the king, either House of Parliament, or other members.
Members offending against any of the rules of debate are called to
order by the Speaker, or the attention of the chair is directed to
the breach of order by another member. Order is generally enforced
by the authority of the chair; but in extreme cases, and especially
when obstruction is being practised, the offending member is named
by the Speaker, and suspended by an order of the house, or
otherwise punished at the discretion of the house.

At the conclusion of a debate, unless the motion be withdrawn,
or the question (on being put from the chair) be agreed to or
negatived, the house proceeds to a division, which effects the
twofold purpose of ascertaining the numbers supporting and opposing
the question, and of recording the names of members voting on
either side. On each side of the house is a division lobby; and in the Lords the "
contents " and in the Commons the " ayes " are directed to go to
the right, and the " not contents " or " noes " to the left. The
former pass into the right lobby, at the back of the Speaker's
chair, and return to the house through the bar; the latter pass into the left lobby, at the
bar, and return at the back of the chair. The opposing parties are
thus kept entirely clear of one another. In each lobby there are
two members acting as tellers, who count the members as they pass,
and two division clerks who take down their names. After the
division the four tellers advance to the table, and the numbers are
reported by one of the tellers for the majority. In case of an
equality of numbers, in the Lords the question is negatived in
virtue of the ancient rule " semper praesumitur pro negante "; in
the Commons the Speaker gives the casting vote.

Committees of the Whole House

For the sake of convenience in the transaction of business there
are several kinds of committees. Of these the most important is a
committee of the whole house, which, as it consists of the entire
body of members, can scarcely be accounted a committee. It is
presided over by a chairman, who sits in the clerk's chair at the
table, the mace, which represent^
the authority of the house itself, being for the time placed under
the table. In this committee are discussed the several provisions
of bills, resolutions and other matters requiring the consideration
of details. To facilitate discussion, members are allowed to speak.
any number of times to the same question; otherwise the proceedings
are similar to those of the house itself. In the Lords the chair is
taken by the chairman of committees; and in the Commons by the
chairman of the committee of ways and means, or in his absence by
any other member. The quorum of such a committee is the same as
that of the house itself. It reports from time to time to the
house, but has no power of adjournment.

Grand and Standing Committees

In the House of Commons there were formerly four grand
committees, viz. for religion, for grievances, for courts of
justice, and for trade. They were founded upon the valuable
principle of a distribution of labours among several bodies of
members; but, having fallen into disuse, they were discontinued in
1832. The ancient committee of privileges, in which " all who come
are to have voices," is still appointed at the commencement of
every session, but is rarely called into action, as it has been
found more convenient to appoint a select committee to inquire into
any question of privilege as it arises. In 1882 a partial revival
of grand committees was effected by the appointment of two standing
committees for the consideration of bills relating to law and
courts of justice and to trade; and grand committees have since
been considerably extended.

Select Committees

In select committees both houses find the means of delegating
inquiries, and the consideration of other matters, which could not
be undertaken by the whole house. The reports of such committees
have formed the groundwork of many important measures; and bills
are often referred to them which receive a fuller examination than
could be expected in a committee of the whole house. Power is given
to such committees, when required, to send for persons, papers and
records. In the Lords the power of examining witnesses upon oath
has always been exercised, but it was not until 1871 that the same
power was extended to the Commons, by statute.

Communications between the Two Houses

In the course of the proceedings of parliament, frequent
communications between the two houses become necessary. Of these
the most usual and convenient form is that of a message. Formerly the Lords sent a message by
two judges or two masters in chancery, and the Commons by a deputation of
their own members; but since 1855 messages have been taken from one
house to the other by one of the clerks at the table. A more formal
communication is effected by a conference, in reference to
amendments to bills or other matters; but this proceeding has been
in great measure superseded by the more simple form of a message.
The two houses are also occasionally brought into communication by
means of joint cornmittees and of select committees communicating
with each other.

Communications between the Crown and Parliament

Communi- cations, in various forms, are also conducted
between the Crown and both Houses of Parliament. Of these the most
important are those in which the king, in person or by commission,
is present in the House of Lords to open or prorogue parliament, or
to give the royal assent to bills. His Majesty is then in direct
communication with the three estates of the realm, assembled in the
same chamber. The king also sends messages to both houses under the
royal sign
manual, when all the members are uncovered. Verbal messages are
also sent, and the king's pleasure, or royal recommendation or
consent to bills or other matters, signified through a minister of
the Crown or a privy councillor. Messages under the sign manual are
acknowledged by addresses, except where grants of money are
proposed, in which case no address is presented by the Commons, who
acknowledge them by making provision accordingly.

Both houses approach the Crown, sometimes by joint addresses,
but usually by separate addresses from each house. Such addresses
are presented to His Majesty, either by the whole house, or by the
lords with white staves in one house and by privy councillors in
the other. His Majesty answers, in person, addresses presented by
the whole house; but, when presented otherwise, an answer is
brought by one of the lords with white staves, or by one of the
privy councillors, by whom the address has been presented.
Resolutions of either house are also sometimes directed to be laid
before His Majesty; and messages of congratulation or condolence
are sent to other members of the royal family.

The Passing of Public Bills

The passing of bills forms the most considerable part of the
business of parliament; but a brief notice will suffice to explain
the methods of procedure. These are substantially the same in both
houses; but the privileges of the Commons, in regard to supply and
taxation, require that all
bills imposing a charge upon the people should originate in that
house. On the other hand, the Lords claim that bills for
restoration of honours or in blood, or relating to their own
privileges and jurisdiction, should commence in their house. An act
of grace, or general pardon,
originates with the Crown, and is read once only in both houses.
Bills are divided into public and private; but
here the former only are referred to. In the Lords any peer is
entitled to present a bill, but in the Commons a member is required
to obtain the previous leave of the house to bring in the bill;
and, in the case of bills relating to religion, trade, grants of
public money, or charges upon the subject, a preliminary committee
is necessary before such leave will be given. A bill, when
presented, is read a first time, and ordered to be printed; and a
day is appointed for the second reading. At this latter stage the
principle of the bill is discussed; and, if disapproved of by an
adverse vote, the bill is lost and cannot be renewed during the
same session. If approved, of, it is usually committed to a
committee of the whole house, where every provision is open to
debate and amendment. When the bill has been fully considered it is
reported to the house, with or without amendments, and is ready to
pass through its remaining stages. Sometimes, however, the bill is
first referred to a select committee; or to a grand committee and
not to committee of the whole house.

When a bill has been reported from a committee of the whole
house, or from a standing committee, with amendments, the bill, as
amended, is ordered to be considered on a future day, when further
amendments may be made, or the bill may be recommitted. The next
and last stage is the third reading, when the principle of the
measure, and its amended provisions, are open to review. Even at
this stage the bill may be lost; but if the third reading be agreed
to, it is at once passed and sent to the other house. There it is
open to the like discussions and amendments, and may be rejected.
If returned without amendment, the bill merely awaits the royal
assent; but if returned with amendments, such amendments must be
agreed to, or otherwise adjusted by the two houses, before it can
be submitted for the royal assent. The royal assent consummates the
work of legislation, and converts the bill into an act of
parliament.

Petitions

Both houses are approached by the people by means of petitions,
of which prodigious numbers are presented to the House of Commons
every session. They are referred to the committee on public
petitions, under whose directions they are classified, analysed,
and the number of signatures counted; and, when necessary, the
petitions are printed in extenso. Parliamentary Papers. -
Another source of information is found in parliamentary papers.
These are of various kinds. The greater part are obtained either by
a direct order of the house itself, or by an address to the Crown
for documents relating to matters in which the prerogatives of the
Crown are concerned. Other papers, relating to foreign and colonial
affairs and other public matters, are presented to both houses by
command of His Majesty. Again, many papers are annually presented
in pursuance of acts of parliament.

The Granting of Supplies

The exclusive right of the Commons to grant supplies, and to
originate all measures of taxation, imposes a very onerous service
upon that house. This is mainly performed by two committees of the
whole house - the committee of supply, and the committee of ways
and means. The former deals with all the estimates for the public
service presented to the house by command of His Majesty; and the
latter votes out of the Consolidated Fund such sums as are
necessary to meet the supplies already granted, and originates all
taxes for the service of the year. It is here that the annual
financial statement of the chancellor of the exchequer, commonly known as " the Budget," is delivered. The
resolutions of these committees are reported to the house, and,
when agreed to, form the foundation of bills, to be passed by both
houses, and submitted for the royal assent; and towards the close
of the session an Appropriation Act is passed, applying all
the grants for the service of the year.

Elections

The extensive jurisdiction of the Commons in matters of
ejection, already referred to, formerly occupied a considerable
share of their time, but its exercise has now been contracted
within narrow limits. Whenever a vacancy occurs during the
continuance of a parliament, a warrant for a new writ is issued by the Speaker, by order of the
house during the session, and in pursuance of statutes during the
recess. The causes of
vacancies are the death of a member, his being called to the House
of Peers, his acceptance of an office from the Crown, or his bankruptcy. When any
doubt arises as to the issue of a writ, it is usual to appoint a
committee to inquire into the circumstances of the case; and during
the recess the Speaker may reserve doubtful cases for the
determination of the house.

Controverted elections had been originally tried by select
committees, afterwards by the committee of privileges and
elections, and ultimately by the whole house, with scandalous
partiality, but under the Grenville Act of 1770, and other later
acts, by select committees, so constituted as to form a more
judicial tribunal. The influence of party bias, however, too obviously prevailed until 1839,
when Sir Robert Peel introduced an
improved system of nomination, which distinctly raised the
character of election committees; but a tribunal constituted of
political partisans, however chosen, was still open to jealousy and suspicion, and
at length, in 1868, the trial of election petitions was transferred
to judges of the superior courts, to whose determination the house
gives effect, by the issue of new writs or otherwise. The house,
however, still retains and exercises its jurisdiction in all cases
not relegated, by statute, to the judges.

Impeachments and Trial of Peers. - Other forms of
parliamentary judicature still remain to be mentioned. Upon
impeachments by the Commons, the Lords exercise the highest
criminal judicature known to the law; but the occasions upon which
it has been brought into action have been very rare in modern
times. Another judicature is that of the trial of peers by the
House of Lords. And, lastly, by a bill of attainder, the entire parliament may be
called to sit in judgment upon offenders.

Private Bill Legislation

One other important function of parliament remains to be noticed
- that of private bill legislation. Here the duties of parliament
are partly legislative and partly judicial. Public interests are
promoted, and private rights secured. This whole jurisdiction has
been regulated by special standing orders, and by elaborate
arrangements for the nomination of capable and impartial
committees. A prodigious legislative work has been accomplished -
but under conditions most costly to the promoters and opponents of
private bills, and involving a serious addition to the onerous
labours of members of parliament.

History Of The British Parliament The Anglo-Saxon Polity. -
The origin of parliament is to be traced to Anglo-Saxon times.
The Angles, Saxons and other
Teutonic races who conquered Britain brought to their new homes their own
laws and customs, their settled framework of society, their
kinship, their village communities, and a certain
rude representation in local affairs. And we find in the AngloSaxon
polity, as developed during their rule in England, all the
constituent parts of parliament. In their own lands they had chiefs
and leaders, but no kings. But conquest and territorial settlement
were followed by the assumption of royal dignities; and the
victorious chiefs were accepted by their followers as kings. They
were quick to assume the
traditional attributes of royalty. A direct descent from their god Woden, and hereditary right, at
once clothed them with a halo of
glory and with supreme power;
and, when the pagan deity was
deposed, the king received consecration from a Christian archbishop, and was
invested with sacred attributes as " the Lord's anointed." But the
Saxon monarch was a patriarchal king of limited authority, who
acted in concert with his
people; and, though his succession was hereditary, in his own
family, his direct descendant was liable to be passed over in
favour of a worthier heir. Such a ruler was a fitting precursor of
a line of constitutional kings, who in later times were to govern
with the advice and consent of a free parliament.

Meanwhile any council approaching the constitution of a House of
Lords was of slow growth. Anglo-Saxon society, indeed, was not
without an aristocracy. The highest in rank were a
thelings - generally, if not exclusively, sons and brothers of the
king. The ealdorman, originally a high officer, having the
executive government of a shire, and a seat in the king's witan,
became hereditary in certain families, and eventually attained the
dignity of an earl. But centuries were to pass before the English
nobility was to assume its
modern character and denominations. At the head of each village was
an eorl, the chief of the freemen, or ceorls - their leader in war
and patron in peace. The king's gesiths and thegns formed another
privileged class. Admitted to offices in the king's household and
councils, and enriched by grants of land, they gradually formed a
feudal nobility.

The revival of the Christian Church, under the Anglo-Saxon rule,
created another order of rulers and councillors, destined to take a
leading part in the government of the state. The archbishops and bishops, having spiritual
authority in their own dioceses, and exercising much local
influence in temporal affairs, were also members of the national
council, or witenagemot, and by their greater learning and capacity
were not long in acquiring a leading part in the councils of the
realm. Ecclesiastical councils were also held, comprising bishops,
abbots, and clergy, in which we observe the origin of convocation. The
abbots, thus associated with the bishops, also found a place with
them in the witenagemot. By these several orders, summoned to
advise the king in affairs of state, was formed a council of
magnates - to be developed, in course of time, into an upper
chamber, or House of Lords.

The rise of the Commons (see Representation) as a political
power in the national councils, was of yet slower development: but
in the Anglo-Saxon moots may be discerned the first germs of
popular government in England. In the town-moot the assembled freemen and cultivators of the
" folk-lands " regulated the civil affairs of their own township,
tithing, village or parish.
In the burgh-moot the
inhabitants administered their municipal business, under the presidency of a reeve. The hundred-moot assumed a
more representative character, comprising the reeve and a selected
number of freemen from the several townships and burghs within the
hundred. The shire-moot, or shire-gemot, was an assembly yet more
important. An ealdorman was its president, and exercised a
jurisdiction over a shire, or district comprising several hundreds.
Attended by a reeve and four freemen from every hundred, it assumed
a distinctly representative character. Its members, if not
elected (in the modern sense) by the popular voice, were,
in some fashion, deputed to act on behalf of those whose
interests they had come to guard. The shire-moot was also the
general folk-moot of the tribe, assembled in arms, to whom their
leaders referred the decision of questions of peace and war.

Superior to these local institutions was the witenagemot, or
assembly of wise men, with whom the king took counsel in
legislation and the government of the state. This national council
was the true beginning of the parliament of England. Such a council
was originally held in each of the kingdoms commonly known as the
Heptarchy; and after
their union in a single realm, under King Edgar, the witenagemot
became the deliberative and legislative assembly, or parliament, of
the extended estate. The witenagemot made laws, imposed taxes,
concluded treaties,
advised the king as to the disposal of public lands and the
appointment and removal of officers of state, and even
assumed to elect and depose the king himself. The king had now
attained to greater power, and more royal dignities and
prerogatives. He was unquestionably the chief power in the
witenagemot; but the laws were already promulgated, as in later
times, as having been agreed to with the advice and consent of the
witan. The witan also exercised jurisdiction as a supreme court.
These ancient customs present further examples of the continuity of
English constitutional forms.

The constitution of the witenagemot, however, was necessarily
less popular than that of the local moots in the hundred or the
shire. The king himself was generally present; and at his summons
came prelates, abbots, ealdormen, the king's gesiths and thegns,
officers of state and of the royal household, and leading tenants in
chief of lands held from the crown. Crowds sometimes attended the
meetings of the witan, and shouted their acclamations of approval
or dissent; and, so far, the popular voice was associated with its
deliberations; but it was at a distance from all but the
inhabitants of the place in which it was assembled, and until a
system of representation (q.v.) had slowly grown up there could be
no further admission of the people to its deliberations. In the
town-moot the whole body of freemen and cultivators of the
folk-lands met freely under a spreading oak, or on the village green; in the hundred-moot,
or shiregemot, deputies from neighbouring communities could readily
find a place; but all was changed in the wider council of a
kingdom. When there were many kingdoms, distance obstructed any
general gathering of the Commons; and in the wider area of England
such a gathering became impossible. Centuries were yet to pass
before this obstacle was to be overcome by representation; but, in
the meantime, the local institutions of the AngloSaxons were not
without their influence upon the central council. The
self-government of a free people informed the bishops, ealdormen,
ceorls and thegns who dwelt among them of their interests and
needs, their sufferings and their wrongs; and, while the popular
forces were increasing with an advancing society, they grew more
powerful in the councils of their rulers.

Another circumstance must not be overlooked in estimating the
political influence of the people in Anglo-Saxon times. For five
centuries the country was convulsed with incessant wars - wars with
the Britons, whom the invaders were driving from their homes, wars between the
several kingdoms, wars with the Welsh, wars with the Picts, wars
with the Danes. How could the people continue to assert their civil
rights amid the clash of arms and a frequent change of masters? The
warrior-kings and their armed followers were rulers in the land
which they had conquered. At the same time the unsettled condition
of the country repressed the social advancement of its people. Agriculture could not
prosper when the farm of the
husbandman too often became a battlefield. Trade could not be
extended without security
to property and industry. Under such conditions the great body of
the people continued as peasants, handicraftsmen and slaves. The
time had not yet come when they could make their voice heard in the
councils of the state.

The Anglo-Saxon polity was suddenly overthrown by the Norman
Conquest. A stern foreign king had seized the crown, and was
prepared to rule his conquered realm by the sword. He brought with him the absolutist
principles of continental rulers, and the advanced feudal system of
France and Normandy. Feudalism had been slowly gaining ground
under the Saxon kings, and now it was firmly established as a
military organization. William the Conqueror at once rewarded his
warlike barons and followers with enormous grants of land. The
Saxon landowners and peasants were despoiled, and the invaders
settled in their homesteads. The king claimed the broad lands of
England as his own, by right of conquest; and when he allowed his
warriors to share the spoil he attached the strict condition of
military service in return for every grant of land. An effective
army of occupation of all ranks was thus quartered upon every
province throughout the realm. England was held by the sword; a
foreign king, foreign nobles, and a foreign soldiery were in
possession of the soil, and swore fealty to their master, from whom
they held it. Saxon bishops were deposed, and foreign prelates
appointed to rule over the English Church. Instead of calling a
national witenagemot, the king took counsel with the officers of
his state and household, the bishops, abbots, earls, barons and
knights by whom he was pleased to surround himself. Some of the
forms of a national council were indeed maintained, and its counsel
and consent were proclaimed in the making of laws; but, in truth,
the king was absolute.

Such a revolution seemed fatal to the liberties and ancient
customs of Saxon England. What power could withstand the harsh
conqueror? But the indestructible elements of English society
prevailed over the sword. The king grasped, in his own hands, the
higher administration and judicature of the realm; but he continued
the old local courts of the hundred and the shire, which had been
the basis of Saxon freedom. The Norman polity was otherwise
destined to favour the liberties of the people, through agencies
which had been designed to crush them. The powerful nobles, whom
William and his successors exalted, became formidable rivals of the
Crown itself; while ambitious barons were in their turn held in
check by a jealous and exacting church. The ruling powers, if
combined, would have reduced the people to slavery; but their divisions proved a continual
source of weakness. In the meantime the strong rule of the Normans, bitter as it was to
Englishmen, repressed intestine wars and the disorders of a divided
realm. Civil justice was fairly administered. When the spoils of
the conquerors had been secured, the rights of property were
protected, industry and trade were left free, and the occupation of
the soil by foreigners drove numbers of landowners and freemen into
the towns, where they prospered as merchants, traders and
artificers, and collected thriving populations of townsmen.
Meanwhile, foreign rulers having brought England into closer
relations with the Continent, its commerce was extended to distant
lands, ports and shipping
were encouraged, and English traders were at once enriched and
enlightened. Hence new classes of society were growing, who were
eventually to become the Commons of England.

The Crown, the Barons, the Church and the People

While these social changes were steadily advancing, the
barons were already preparing the way for the assertion of popular
rights. Ambitious, turbulent and grasping, they were constantly at
issue with the Crown. Enjoying vast estates and great commands, and
sharing with the prelates the government of the state, as members
of the king's council, they were ever ready to raise the standard
of revolt. The king could always count upon barons faithful to his
cause, but he also appealed for aid to the Church and the people.
The baronage was thus broken by insurrections, and decimated by
civil wars, while the value of popular alliances was revealed. The
power of the people. was ever increasing, while their oppressors
were being struck down. The population of the country was still
Saxon; they had been subdued, but had not been driven forth from
the land, like the Britons in former invasions. The English
language was still the common speech of the people; and Norman
blood was being mingled with the broader stream of Saxon life. A
continuous nationality was thus preserved, and was
outgrowing the foreign element.

The Crown was weakened by disputed successions and foreign wars,
and the baronage by the blood-stained fields of civil warfare;
while both in turn looked to the people in their troubles.
Meanwhile the Church was struggling, alike against the Crown and
the barons, in defence of its ecclesiastical privileges and
temporal possessions. Its clergy were brought by their spiritual
ministrations into close relations with the people, and their
culture contributed to the intellectual growth of English society.
When William Rufus was threatened by his armed barons he took
counsel with Archbishop Lanfranc, and promised good laws and justice
to the people. His promises were broken; but, like later charters,
as lightly set aside, they were a recognition of the political
rights of the people. By the charter of Henry I. restoring to the people the laws of Edward
the Confessor, the continuity of English institutions was
acknowledged; and this concession was also proclaimed through
Archbishop Anselm, the church
and the people being again associated with the Crown against the
barons. And throughout his reign the clergy and the English people
were cordially united in support of the Crown. In the anarchic
reign of Stephen - also
distinguished by its futile charters - the clergy were driven into
opposition to the king, while his oppressions alienated the people.
Henry II. commenced his
reign with another charter, which may be taken as a profession of
good intentions on the part of the new king. So strong-willed a
king, who could cripple his too powerful nobles, and forge shackles
for the Church, was not predisposed to extend the liberties of his
people; but they supported him loyally in his critical struggles;
and his vigorous reforms in the administrative, judicial and
financial organization of his realm. promoted the prosperity and
political influence of the Commons. At the same time the barons
created in this and the two previous reigns, being no longer
exclusively Norman in blood and connexion, associated themselves
more readily with the interests and sympathies of the people. Under
Richard I. the principle
of representation was somewhat advanced, but it was confined to the
assessment and
collection of taxes in the different shires.

Magna
Carta (q.v.). - It was under King John that the greatest progress was made in
national liberties. The loss of Normandy served to draw the
baronage closer to the English people; and the king soon united all
the forces of the realm against him. He outraged the Church, the
barons and the people. He could no longer play one class against
another; and they combined to extort the Great Charter of their
liberties at Runnymede (1215). It was there ordained that no scutage or aid, except the
three regular feudal aids, should
be imposed, save by the common council of the realm. To this
council the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and greater barons
were to be summoned personally by the king's letters, and tenants
in chief by a general writ through the sheriff. The summons was required to appoint a
certain place, to give 40 days' notice at least, and to state the
cause of meeting. At length we seem to reach some approach to
modern usage.

Growth of the Commons

The improved administration of successive kings had tended to
enlarge the powers of the Crown. But one hundred and fifty years
had now passed since the Conquest, and great advances had been made
in the condition of the people, and more particularly in the
population, wealth and self-government of towns. Many had obtained
royal charters, elected their own magistrates, and enjoyed various
commercial privileges. They were already a power in the state,
which was soon to be more distinctly recognized.

The charter of King John was again promulgated under Henry III., for the sake of
a subsidy; and henceforth
the Commons learned to insist upon the redress of grievances in
return for a grant of money. This reign was memorable in the
history of parliament.' Again the king was in conflict with his
barons, who rebelled against his gross misgovernment of the realm. Simon de Montfort,
earl of Leicester, was a patriot in advance of his age and
fought for the English people as well as for his own order. The
barons, indeed, were doubtful allies of the popular cause, and
leaned to the king rather than to Simon. But the towns, the clergy,
the universities and large bodies of the commonalty rallied round
him, and he overthrew the king and his followers at Lewes. He was now master of the
realm, and proclaimed a new constitution. Kings had made promises,
and granted illusory charters; but the rebel earl called an English
parliament (1265) into being. Churchmen were on his side, and a few
barons; but his main reliance was upon the Commons. He summoned to
a national council, or parliament, bishops, abbots, earls and
barons, together with two knights from every shire and two
burgesses from every borough. Knights had indeed been summoned to
former councils; but never until now had delegates from the towns
been invited to sit with bishops, barons and knights of the
shire.

In the reign of Edward
I. parliament assumed substantially its present form of king,
lords and commons. The irregular and unauthorized scheme of Simon
de Montfort was fully
adopted; and in 1295 the king summoned to a parliament two knights
from 1 In 1254 we have a distinct case of two knights summoned from
each shire by royal writ. A war was going on in Gascony, and the king wanted money. He called
the barons and asked if they would provide the necessary funds. The
barons said that unfortunately the minor gentry were exceedingly
unwilling to contribute, and the king sent to ask that two knights
from each shire might be sent up to consult with him. In the
result, the Commons refused to grant a subsidy, and the king had to
fall back on the Church; but though the summoning of the knights of
the shire was in form a small change from the previous practice of
sending some one down to the counties to put pressure on them, the
innovation is important as the first occasion on which their
representatives met in a central assembly. - [H. CH.] every shire
chosen by the freeholders at the shire court, and two burgesses
from every city, borough and leading town.' The rebel earl had
enlarged the basis of the national council; and, to secure popular
support, the politic king accepted it as a convenient instrument of
taxation. The knights and freeholders had increased in numbers and
wealth; and the towns, continually advancing in population, trade
and commerce, had become valuable contributors to the revenue of
the state. The grant of subsidies to the Crown, by the assembled
baronage and representatives of the shires and towns, was a legal
and comprehensive impost upon
the entire realm.

It formed part of Edward's policy to embrace the clergy in his
scheme for the representation of all orders and classes of his
subjects. They were summoned to attend the parliament of 1295 and
succeeding parliaments of his reign, and their form of summons has
been continued until the present time; but the clergy resolutely
held aloof from the national council, and insisted upon voting
their subsidies in their own convocations of Canterbury and York. The bishops retained their high place among the
earls and barons, but the clergy sacrificed to ecclesiastical
jealousies the privilege of sharing in the political councils of
the state. As yet, indeed, this privilege seemed little more than
the voting of subsidies, but it was soon to embrace the redress of
grievances and the framing of laws for the general welfare of the
realm. This great power they forfeited; and who shall say how it
might have been wielded, in the interests of the Church, and in the
legislation of their country? They could not have withstood the
Reformation; they would have been forced to yield to the power
of the Crown and the heated resolution of the laity; but they might have
saved a large share of the endowments of the Church, and perhaps
have modified the doctrines and formularies of the reformed
establishment.

Reluctance of the Commons to Attend

Meanwhile the Commons, unconscious of their future power, took
their humble place in the great council of the realm. The knights
of the shire, as lesser barons, or landowners of good social
standing, could sit beside the magnates of the land without
constraint; but modest traders from the towns were overawed by the
power and dignity of their new associates. They knew that they were
summoned for no other purpose than the taxing of themselves and
their fellow townsmen; their attendance was irksome; it interrupted
their own business; and their journeys exposed them to many
hardships and dangers. It is not surprising that they should have
shrunk from the exercise of so doubtful a privilege. Considerable
numbers absented themselves from a thankless service; and their
constituents, far from exacting the attendance of their members, as
in modern times, begrudged the sorry stipend of 2S. a day, paid to their
representatives while on duty, and strove to evade the burden imposed upon them by the
Crown. Some even purchased charters, withdrawing franchises which
they had not yet learned to value. Nor, in truth, did the
representation of towns at this period afford much protection to
the rights and interests of the people. Towns were enfranchised at
the will or caprice of the Crown and the sheriffs; they could be
excluded at pleasure; and the least show of independence would be
followed by the omission of another writ of ' It
now appears that substantially this was effected as early as 1275.
The transition period between Simon de Montfort's parliament of
1265 and the " model parliament " of 1295 was long a puzzle to historical students,
since, except for two provincial councils in 1283, no trace was
found in the records, between 1265 and 1295, of the representation
- of cities or boroughs, or of representation of the counties
between 1275 and 1290. But in 1910 Mr C. Hilary Jenkinson (see
English Historical Review, for April) found in the Record
Office some old documents which proved to be fragments of three
writs and of returns of members for the Easter parliament of 1275. They make it certain
that knights of the shire were then present, and that burgesses and
citizens were summoned (not as in 1265 through the mayors, but as
since 1295 through the sheriffs). The importance of the 1295
parliament thus appears to be smaller in English constitutional
history, the full reforms appearing to have been adopted 20 years
earlier. It is noteworthy, however, that in the writs of 1275 the
instruction to the sheriff is " venire facias," not " eligi facias.
Ch.] summons. But the principle of representation (q.v.), once
established, was to be developed with the expansion of society; and
the despised burgesses of Edward I., not having seceded, like the
clergy, were destined to become a potential class in the
parliaments of England.

Sitting of Parliament at Westminster

Another constitutional change during this reign was the
summoning of parliament to Westminster instead of to various towns
in different parts of the country. This custom invested parliament
with the character of a settled institution, and constituted it a
high court for the hearing
of petitions and the redress of grievances. The growth of its
judicature, as a court of appeal, was also favoured by the fixity
of its place of meeting.

Authority of Parliament recognized by Law. - Great was
the power of the Crown, and the king himself was bold and
statesmanlike; but the union of classes against him proved too
strong for prerogative. In 1297, having outraged the
Church, the barons, and the Commons, by illegal exactions, he was
forced to confirm the Great Charter and the Charter of Forests,
with further securities against the taxation of the people without
their consent and, in return, obtained timely subsidies from the
parliament. Henceforth the financial necessities of a succession of
kings ensured the frequent assembling of parliaments. Nor were they
long contented with the humble function of voting subsidies, but
boldly insisted on the redress of grievances and further securities
for national liberties. In 1322 it was declared by statute 15 Edw.
II. that " the matters to be established for the estate of the king
and of his heirs, and for the estate of the realm and of the
people, should be treated, accorded, and established in parliament,
by the king, and by the assent of the prelates, earls and barons,
and the commonalty of the realm, according as had been before
accustomed." The constitutional powers of parliament as a
legislature were here amply recognized - not by royal charter, or
by the occasional exercise of prerogative, but by an authoritative
statute. And these powers were soon to be exercised in a striking
form. Already parliament had established the principle that the
redress of grievances should have precedence of the grant of
subsidies; it had maintained the right of approving councillors of
the Crown, and punishing them for the abuse of their powers; and in
1327 the king himself was finally deposed, and the succession of
his son, Edward III., declared by parliament.

Union of Knights of the Shire and Burgesses

At this period the constitution of parliament was also settling
down to its later and permanent shape. Hitherto the different
orders or estates had deliberated separately, and agreed upon their
several grants to the Crown. The knights of the shire were
naturally drawn, by social ties and class interests, into alliance with the barons; but
at length they joined the citizens and burgesses, and in the first
parliament of Edward III. they are found sitting together as " the
Commons." This may be taken as the turning point in the political
history of England. If all the landowners of the country had become
united as an order of nobles, they might have proved too strong for
the development of national liberties, while the union of the
country gentlemen with the burgesses formed an estate of the realm
which was destined to prevail over all other powers. The withdrawal
of the clergy, who would probably have been led by the bishops to
take part with themselves and the barons, further strengthened the
united Commons.

Increasing Influence of Parliament

The reign of Edward III. witnessed further advances in the
authority of parliament, and changes in its constitution. The king,
being in continual need of subsidies, was forced to summon
parliament every year, and in order to encourage its liberality he
frequently sought its advice upon the most important issues of
peace or war, and readily entertained the petitions of the Commons
praying for the redress of grievances. During this reign also, the
advice and consent of the Commons, as well as of the Lords
spiritual and temporal, was regularly recorded in the enacting part
of every statute.

Separation of the Two Houses

But a more important event is to be assigned to this reign, -
the formal separation of parliament into the two houses of Lords
and Commons. There is no evidence - nor is it probable - that the
different estates ever voted together as a single assembly. It
appears from the rolls of parliament that in the early part of this
reign, the causes of summons having been declared to the assembled
estates, the three estates deliberated separately, but afterwards
delivered a collective answer to the king. While their
deliberations were short they could be conducted apart, in the same
chamber; but, in course of time, it was found convenient for the
Commons to have a chamber of their own, and they adjourned their
sittings to the chapter-house of the abbot of Westminster, where they continued to be
held after the more formal and permanent separation had taken
place. The date of this event is generally assigned to the 17th
Edward III.

The Commons as Petitioners

Parliament had now assumed its present outward form. But it was
far from enjoying the authority which it acquired in later times.
The Crown was still paramount; the small body of earls and barons -
not exceeding 40 - were connected with the royal family, or in the
service of the king, or under his influence; the prelates, once
distinguished by their independence, were now seekers of royal
favour; and the Commons, though often able to extort concessions in
return for their contributions to the royal exchequer, as yet held
an inferior position among the estates of the realm. Instead of
enjoying an equal share in the framing of laws, they appeared
before the king in the humble guise of petitioners. Their petitions, together
with the king's answers, were recorded in the rolls of parliament;
but it was not until the parliament had been discharged from
attendance that statutes were framed by the judges and entered on
the statute rolls. Under such conditions legislation was, in truth,
the prerogative of the Crown rather than of parliament. Enactments
were often found in the statutes at variance with the petitions and
royal answers, and neither prayed for by the Commons nor assented
to by the Lords. In vain the Commons protested against so grave an
abuse of royal authority; but the same practice was continued
during this and succeeding reigns. Henry V., in the second year of his reign,
promised " that nothing should be enacted to the petitions of the
Commons, contrary to their asking, whereby they should be bound
without their assent; " but, so long as the old method of framing
laws was adhered to, there could be no security against abuse; and
it was not until the reign of Henry VI. that the introduction of the more
regular system of legislating by bill and statute ensured the
thorough agreement of all the estates in the several provisions of
every statute.

Increasing Boldness of the Commons

The Commons, however, notwithstanding these and other
discouragements, were constantly growing bolder in the assertion of
their rights. They now ventured to brave the displeasure of the
king, without seeking to shelter themselves behind powerful barons,
upon whose forwardness in the national cause they could not reckon.
Notably in 1376 their stout Speaker, Peter de la Mare, inveighed, in their name,
against the gross mismanagement of the war, impeached ministers of
the realm, complained of the heavy burdens under which the people
suffered, and even demanded that a true account should be rendered
of the public expenditure. The brave Speaker was cast into prison, and a new parliament was
summoned which speedily reversed the resolutions of the last. But
the death of the king changed the aspect of affairs. Another
parliament was called, when it was found that the spirit of the
Commons was not subdued. Peter de la Mare was released from prison,
and again elected to the chair. The demands of the former
parliament were reiterated with greater boldness and persistence,
the evil councillors of the late reign were driven out, and it was
conceded that the principal officers of state should be appointed
and removed, during the minority of Richard II., upon the advice of the lords.
The Commons also insisted upon the annual assembling of parliament
under the stringent provisions of a binding law. They claimed the
right, not only of voting subsidies, but of appropriating them, and
of examining public accounts. They inquired into public abuses, and
impeached ministers of the Crown. Even the king himself was deposed
by the parliament. Thus during this reign all the great powers of
parliament were asserted and exercised. The foreign wars of Henry IV. and Henry V., by
continuing the financial necessities of the Crown, maintained for a
while the powers which parliament had acquired by the struggles of
centuries.

Relapse of Parliamentary Influence

But a period of civil wars and disputed successions was now at
hand, which checked the further development of parliamentary
liberties. The effective power of a political institution is
determined, not by assertions of authority, nor even by its legal
recognition, but by the external forces by which it is supported,
controlled or overborne. With the close of the Wars of the
Roses the life of parliament seems to have well-nigh
expired.

To this constitutional relapse various causes contributed at the
same period. The Crown had recovered its absolute supremacy. The
powerful baronage had been decimated on the battlefield and the scaffold; and vast estates
had been confiscated to the Crown. Kings had no longer any dread of
their prowess as defenders of their own order or party, or as
leaders of the people. The royal treasury had been enriched by
their ruin; while the close of a long succession of wars with
France and Scotland relieved it of that continual drain which had
reduced the Crown to an unwelcome dependence upon parliament. Not
only were the fortunes of the baronage laid low, but feudalism was
also dying out in England as on the continent. It was no longer a
force which could control the Crown; and it was being further
weakened by changes in the art of war. The mailed horseman, the
battle-axe and cross-bow of the burgher and yeoman, could not cope with the cannon and arquebus of the royal army.

In earlier times the Church had often stood forth against the
domination of kings, but now it was in passive submission to the
Throne. The prelates were attracted to the court, and sought the
highest offices of state; the inferior clergy had long been losing
their influence over the laity by their ignorance and want of moral elevation at a
period of increasing enlightenment; while the Church at large was
weakened by schisms and a wider freedom of thought. Hence the
Church, like the baronage, had ceased to be a check upon the
Crown.

Meanwhile what had become of the ever-growing power of the
Commons? It is true they had lost their stalwart leaders, the armed
barons and outspoken prelates, but they had themselves advanced in
numbers, riches and enlightenment; they had overspread the land as
knights and freeholders, or dwelt in populous towns enriched by
merchandise. Why could they not find leaders of their own? Because
they had lost the liberal franchises of an early age. All
freeholders, or suitors present at the county court, were formerly entitled to
vote for a knight of the shire; but in the eighth year of Henry VI.
(1430) an act was passed (c. 37) by which this right was confined
to 40s. freeholders, resident in the county. Large numbers of electors were thus
disfranchised. In the view of parliament they were " of no value,"
and complaints had been made that they were under the influence of
the nobles and greater landowners; but a popular element had been
withdrawn from the county representation, and the restricted franchise cannot have
impaired the influence of the nobles.

As for the cities and boroughs, they had virtually renounced
their electoral privileges. As we have seen, they had never valued
them very highly; and now by royal charters, or by the usurpation
of small self-elected bodies of burgesses, the choice of members
had fallen into the hands of town councils and neighbouring
landowners. The anomalous system of close and nomination boroughs,
which had arisen thus early in English history, was suffered to
continue without a check for four centuries, as a notorious blot
upon a free constitution.

All these changes exalted the prerogatives of the Crown. Amid
the clash of arms and the strife of hostile parties the voice of
parliament had been stifled; and, when peace was restored, a xx. 27
a powerful king could dispense with an assembly which might prove
troublesome, and from whom he rarely needed help. Hence for a
period of two hundred years, from the reign of Henry VI. to that of
Elizabeth, the free
parliaments of England were in abeyance. The institution retained its form
and constituent parts; its rights and privileges were theoretically
recognized, but its freedom and national character were little more
than shadows.

The Three Estates of the Realm

This check in the fortunes of parliament affords a fitting
occasion for examining the composition of Bach of the three estates
of the realm.

Lords Spiritual and Temporal

The archbishops and bishops had held an eminent position in the
councils of Saxon and Norman kings, and many priors and abbots were
from time to time associated with them as lords spiritual, until
the suppression of the monasteries by Henry VIII. They generally
outnumbered their brethren, the temporal peers, who sat with them
in the same assembly.

The lords temporal comprised several dignities. Of these the
baron, though now the lowest in rank, was the most ancient. The
title was familiar in Saxon times, but it was not until after the
Norman Conquest that it was invested with a distinct feudal
dignity. Next in antiquity was the earl, whose official title was
known to Danes and Saxons, and who after the Conquest obtained a
dignity equivalent to that of count in foreign states. The highest
dignity, that of duke, was not created until Edward III. conferred
it upon his son, Edward the Black Prince. The rank of marquess was
first created by Richard II., with precedence after a duke. It was
in the reign of Henry VI. that the rank of viscount was created, to
be placed between the earl and the baron. Thus the peerage
consisted of the five dignities of duke, marquess, earl, viscount
and baron. During the 15th century the number of temporal peers
summoned to parliament rarely exceeded fifty, and no more than
twenty-nine received writs of summons to the first parliament of Henry VII. There were only
fifty-nine at the death of Queen Elizabeth. At the accession of William III. this
number had been increased to about one hundred and fifty.

Life Peerages

The several orders of the peerage are alike distinguished by the
hereditary character of their dignities. Some life peerages,
indeed, were created between the reigns of Richard II. and Henry
VI., and several ladies had received life peerages between the
reigns of Charles II. and George II. The highest authorities
had also held that the creation of life peerages was within the
prerogative of the Crown. But four hundred years had elapsed since
the creation of a life peer, entitled to sit in parliament, when
Queen Victoria was advised
to create Sir James Parke, an eminent
judge, a baron for life, under the title of Lord Wensleydale. The object
of this deviation from the accustomed practice was to strengthen
the judicature of the House of Lords, without unduly enlarging the
numbers of the peerage. But the Lords at once took exception to
this act of the Crown, and, holding that a prerogative so long
disused could not be revived, in derogation of the hereditary
character of the peerage, resolved that Lord Wensleydale was not
entitled by his letters patent and writ of summons to
sit and vote in parliament. His lordship acc9rdingly received a new
patent, and took his seat as an hereditary peer. But the necessity
of some such expedient for improving the appellate jurisdiction of
the House of Lords could not be contested; and in 1876 three lords of appeal in ordinary
were constituted by statute, enjoying the rank of baron for life,
and the right of sitting and voting in the House of Lords so long
as they continue in office.

The Commons

The Commons formed a more numerous body. In the reign of Edward
I. there were about 275 members, in that of Edward III. 250, and in
that of Henry VI. 300. In the reign of Henry VIII. parliament added
27 members for Wales and four
for the county and city of Chester, and in the reign of Charles II. 4 for
the county and city of Durham. Between the reigns of
Henry VIII. and Charles II. 130 members were also added by royal
charter.

VIII

To resume the history of parliament at a later period, let us
glance at the reign of Henry VIII. Never had the power of the Crown
been greater than when this king succeeded to the throne, and never
had a more imperious will been displayed by any king of England.
Parliament was at his feet to do his bidding, and
the Reformation enormously increased his power. He had become a pope to the bishops; the old nobles
who had resisted his will had perished in the field or on the
scaffold; the new nobles were his creatures; and he had the vast
wealth of the Church in his hands as largesses to his adherents.
Such was the dependence of parliament upon the Crown and its
advisers during the Reformation period that in less than thirty
years four vital changes were decreed in the national faith.
Each of the successive reigns inaugurated a new religion.

Queen Elizabeth and her Parliaments

With the reign of Elizabeth commenced a new era in the life of
parliament. She had received the royal prerogatives unimpaired, and
her hand was strong enough to wield them. But in the long interval
since Edward IV. the
entire framework of English society had been changed; it was a new England that the
queen was called upon to govern. The coarse barons of feudal times
had been succeeded by English country gentlemen, beyond the
influence of the court, and identified with all the interests and
sympathies of their country neighbours. From this class were chosen
nearly all the knights of the shire, and a considerable proportion
of the members for cities and boroughs. They were generally
distinguished by a manly independence, and were prepared to uphold
the rights and privileges of parliament and the interests of their
constituents. A change no less remarkable had occurred in other
classes of society. The country was peopled with yeomen and
farmers, far superior to the cultivators of the soil in feudal
times; and the towns and seaports had grown into important centres
of commerce and manufactures. Advances not less striking had been
made in the enlightenment and culture of society. But, above all,
recent religious revolutions had awakened a spirit of thought and
inquiry by no means confined to questions of faith. The Puritans,
hostile to the Church, and jealous of every semblance of Catholic revival, were
embittered against the state, which was identified, in their eyes,
with many ecclesiastical enormities; and stubborn temper was destined to become a strong motive
force in restoring the authority of parliament.

The parliaments of Elizabeth, though rarely summoned, displayed
an unaccustomed spirit. They discussed the succession to the Crown,
the marriage of the queen, and ecclesiastical abuses; they upheld
the privileges of the Commons and their right to advise the Crown
upon all matters of state; and they condemned the grant of
monopolies. The bold words of the Wentworths and Yelvertons were
such as had not been heard before in parliament. The conflicts
between Elizabeth and the Commons marked the revival of the
independence of parliament, and foreshadowed graver troubles at no
distant period.

James I., with short-sighted pedantry, provoked a succession
of conflicts with the Commons, in which abuses of prerogative were
stoutly resisted and the rights and privileges of parliament
resolutely asserted. The " remonstrance " of 1610 and the "
protestation " of 1621 would have taught a politic ruler that the
Commons could no longer be trifled with; but those lessons were
lost upon James and upon his
ill-fated son.

The momentous struggles between Charles I. and his parliaments
cannot be followed in this place. The earlier parliaments of this
reign fairly represented the earnest and temperate judgment of the country.
They were determined to obtain the redress of grievances and to
restrain undue prerogatives; but there was no taint of disloyalty
to the Crown; there were no dreams of revolution. But the contest
at length became embittered, until there was no issue but the
arbitrament of the sword. The period of the Great Rebellion
and the Commonwealth proved the supreme power of the Commons, when
supported by popular forces. Everything, gave way before them. They
raised victorious armies in the field, they overthrew the Church
and the House of Lords, and they brought the king himself to the
scaffold. It also displayed the impotence of a parliament which has lost the
confidence of the country, or is overborne by mobs, by an army, or
by the strong will of a dictator.

Political Agitation of this Period

It is to this time of fierce political passions that we trace
the origin of political agitation as an organized method of
influencing the deliberations of parliament. The whole country was
then aroused by passionate exhortations from the pulpit and in the press. No less than thirty
thousand political tracts and newspapers during this period have been
preserved. Petitions to parliament were multiplied in order to
strengthen the hands of the popular leaders. Clamorous meetings
were held to stimulate or overawe parliament. Such methods,
restrained after the Restoration, have been revived in later times,
and now form part of the acknowledged system of parliamentary
government.

Parliament after the Restoration

On the restoration of Charles II. parliament was at once
restored to its old constitution, and its sittings were revived as
if they had suffered no interruption. No outward change had been
effected by the late revolution; but that a stronger spirit of
resistance to abuses of prerogative had been aroused was soon to be
disclosed in the deposition of James II. and " the glorious revolution " of
1688. At this time the full rights of parliament were explicitly
declared, and securities taken for the maintenance of public
liberties. The theory of a constitutional monarchy and a free
parliament was established; but after two revolutions it is curious
to observe the indirect methods by which the Commons were
henceforth kept in subjection to the Crown and the territorial
aristocracy. The representation had long become an illusion. The
knights of the shire were the nominees of nobles and great
landowners; the borough members were returned by the Crown, by
noble patrons or close corporations; even the representation of
cities, with greater pretensions to independence, was controlled by
bribery. Nor were rulers
content with their control of the representation, but, after the
Restoration, the infamous system of bribing the members themselves
became a recognized instrument of administration. The country
gentlemen were not less attached to the principles of rational
liberty than their fathers, and would have resisted further
encroachments of prerogatives; but they were satisfied with the
Revolution settlement and the remedial laws of William III., and no
new issue had yet arisen to awaken opposition. Accordingly, they
ranged themselves with one or other of the political parties into
which parliament was now beginning to be divided, and bore their
part in the more measured strifes of the 18th century. From the
Revolution till the reign of George III. the effective power
of the state was wielded by the Crown, the Church and the
territorial aristocracy; but the influence of public opinion since
the stirring events of the 17th century had greatly increased. Both
parties were constrained to defer to it; and, notwithstanding the
flagrant defects in the representation, parliament generally kept
itself in accord with the
general sentiments of the country.

Union of Scotland

On the union of Scotland' in 1707 important changes were made in
the constitution of parliament. The House of Lords was reinforced
by the addition of sixteen peers, representing the peerage of
Scotland, and elected every parliament; and the Scottish peers, as
a body, were admitted to all the privileges of peerage, except the
right of sitting in parliament or upon the trial of peers. No
prerogative, however, was given to the Crown to create new peerages
after the union; and, while they are distinguished by their
antiquity, their number is consequently decreasing. To the House of
Commons were assigned forty-five members, representing the shires
and burghs of Scotland.

Parliament under George III. - With the reign of George
III. there opened a new period in the history of parliament.
Agitation in its various forms, an active and aggressive press,
public meetings and political associations, the free use of the
right of petition, and a turbulent spirit among the people
seriously changed the relations of parliament to the country. And
the publication of debates, which was fully established in 1771, at
once increased the direct responsibility of parliament to the
people, and ultimately brought about other results, to which we
shall presently advert.

Union of Ireland

In this reign another important change was effected in the
constitution of parliament. Upon the union with Ireland, in 1801,
four Irish bishops were added to the lords spiritual, who sat by
rotation of sessions, and represented the episcopal body of the Church of
Ireland. But those bishops were deprived of their seats in
parliament in 1869, on the disestablishment of the Church of
Ireland. Twenty-eight representative peers, elected for life by the
peerage of Ireland, were admitted to the House of Lords. All the
Irish peers were also entitled to the privilege of peerage. In two
particulars the Irish peerage was treated in a different manner
from the peerage of Scotland. The Crown was empowered to create a
new Irish peerage whenever three Irish peerages in existence at the
time of the Union have become extinct, or when the number of Irish
peers, exclusive of those holding peerages of the United Kingdom,
has been reduced to one hundred. And, further, Irish peers were
permitted to sit in the House of Commons for any place in Great
Britain, forfeiting, however, the privilege of peerage while
sitting in the lower house.

At the same time one hundred representatives of Ireland were
added to the House of Commons. This addition raised the number of
members to six hundred and fifty-eight. Parliament now became the
parliament of the United Kingdom.

Schemes for Improving the Representation

By the union of Scotland and Ireland the electoral abuses of
those countries were combined with those of England.
Notwithstanding a defective representation, however, parliament
generally sustained its position as fairly embodying the political
sentiments of its time. Public opinion had been awakened, and could
not safely be ignored by any party in the state. Under a narrow and
corrupt electoral system the ablest men in the country found an
entrance into the House of Commons; and their rivalry and ambition
ensured the acceptance of popular principles and the passing of
many remedial measures. As society expanded, and new classes were
called Onto existence, the pressure of public opinion upon the
legislature was assuming a more decisive character. The grave
defects of the representation were notorious, and some minor
electoral abuses had been from time to time corrected. But the
fundamental evils - nomination boroughs, limited rights of
election, the sale of seats in parliament, the prevalence of
bribery, and the enormous expense of elections - though constantly
exposed, long held their ground against all assailants. So far back
as 1770 Lord Chatham had
denounced these flagrant abuses. "Before the end of this century,"
he said, " either the parliament will reform itself from within, or
be reformed with a vengeance from without." In 1782, and again in
1783 and 1785, his distinguished son, William Pitt, condemned the abuses of the
representation, and proposed schemes of parliamentary reform. In
1793 Mr Grey (afterwards Earl Grey) submitted a motion on the same
subject; but the excesses of the French Revolution, political
troubles at home, and exhausting wars abroad discouraged the
supporters of reform for many years. Under more favourable
conditions the question assumed greater proportions. Lord John Russell
especially distinguished himself in 1820, and in several succeeding
years, by the able exposure of abuses and by temperate schemes of
reform. His efforts were assisted by the scandalous disclosures of
bribery at Grampound, Penryn and East Retford. All moderate proposals
were rejected; but the concurrence of a dissolution, on the death of George
IV., with the French Revolution in 1830, and an ill-timed
declaration of the duke of Wellington that the representation was
perfect and could not be improved, suddenly precipitated the
memorable crisis of parliamentary reform. It now fell to the lot of
Earl Grey, as premier, to be the leader in a cause which he had
espoused in his early youth.

The Reform Acts of 1832

The result of the memorable struggle which ensued may be briefly
told. By the Reform Acts of 1832 the representation of the United
Kingdom was reconstructed. In England, fifty-six nomination
boroughs returning one hundred and eleven members were
disfranchised; thirty boroughs were each deprived of one member,
and Weymouth and Melcombe
Regis, which had returned four members, were now reduced to two.
Means were thus found for the enfranchisement of populous places.
Twenty-two large towns, including metropolitan districts, became entitled to
return two members, and twenty less considerable towns acquired the
right of returning one member each. The number of county members
was increased from ninety-four to one hundred and fifty-nine, the
larger counties being divided for the purposes of
representation.

The elective franchise was also placed upon a new basis. In the
boroughs a £10 household suffrage was substituted for the narrow and
unequal franchises which had sprung up - the rights of freemen, in
corporate towns, being alone respected. In the counties,
copyholders and leaseholders for terms of years, and tenants at
will paying a rent of £so a year,
were added to the 40s. freeholders.

By the Scottish Reform Act the number of members representing
Scotland was increased from forty-five, as arranged at the union,
to fifty-three, of whom thirty were assigned to counties and
twenty-three to cities and burghs. In counties the franchise was
conferred upon owners of property of £io a year, and certain
classes of leaseholders; in burghs, upon £10 householders, as in
England.

By the Irish Reform Act, no boroughs, however small, were
disfranchised; but the franchise was given to fro householders, and
county constituencies were enlarged. These franchises, however,
were extended in 1850, when an £8 household suffrage was given to
the boroughs, and additions were made to the county franchises. The
hundred members assigned to that country at the union were
increased to one hundred and five. Notwithstanding these various
changes, however, the total number of the House of Commons was
still maintained at six hundred and fifty-eight.

The legislature was now brought into closer relations with the
people, and became more sensitive to the pressure of popular
forces. The immediate effects of this new spirit were perceptible
in the increased legislative activity of the reformed parliament,
its vigorous grappling with old abuses, and its preference of the
public welfare to the narrower interests of classes. But, signal as was the regeneration of
parliament, several electoral evils still needed correction.
Strenuous efforts were made, with indifferent success, to overcome
bribery and corruption, and proposals were often ineffectually made
to restrain the undue influence of landlords and employers of
labour by the ballot;
improvements were made in the registration and polling of electors, and
the property qualification of members was abolished. Complaints
were also urged that the middle classes had been admitted to power,
while the working classes were excluded from the late scheme of
enfranchisement. It was not till 1867 however that any substantial
advance was made.

Increased Power of the Commons

Prior to the reign of Charles I. the condition of society had
been such as naturally to subordinate the Commons to the Crown and
the Lords. After the Revolution of 1688 society had so far advanced
that, under a free representation, the Commons might have striven
with both upon equal terms. But, as by far the greater part of the
representation was in the hands of the king and the territorial
nobles, the large constitutional powers of the Commons were held
safely in check. After 1832, when the representation became a
reality, a corresponding authority was asserted by the Commons. For
several years, indeed, by reason of the weakness of the Liberal party, the
Lords were able successfully to resist the Commons upon many
important occasions; but was soon acknowledged that they must yield
whenever a decisive majority of the Commons, supported by public
opinion, insisted upon the passing of any measure, however
repugnant to the sentiments of the upper house. And it became a
political axiom that the Commons
alone determined the fate of ministries.

Later Measures of Reform

In 1852, and again in 1854, Lord John Russell
introduced measures of parliamentary reform; but constitutional
changes were discouraged by the Crimean War. In 1859 Lord Derby's
Conservative government proposed another scheme of reform, which
was defeated; and in 1860 Lord John Russell brought in another
bill, which was not proceeded with; and the question of reform
continued in abeyance until after the death of Lord Palmerston. Earl Russell,
who succeeded him as premier, was prompt to redeem former pledges,
and hastened to submit to a new parliament, in 1866, another scheme
of reform. This measure, and the ministry by whom it was promoted,
were overthrown by a combination of the Conservative opposition and
the memorable " cave " of members
of the Liberal party. But the popular sentiment in favour of
reform, which had for some years been inert, was suddenly aroused
by the defeat of a Liberal ministry and the triumph of the party
opposed to reform. Lord Derby
and his colleagues were now constrained to undertake the settlement
of this embarrassing question; and by a strange concurrence of
political events and party tactics a scheme far more democratic than that
of the Liberal government was accepted by the same parliament,
under the auspices of a Conservative ministry.

The Reform Acts of 1867-1868

By the English Reform Act of 1867 four corrupt boroughs were
disfranchised, and thirty-eight boroughs returning two members were
henceforth to return one only. A third member was given to Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Leeds; a second member to Merthyr Tydfil
and Salford; the Tower Hamlets were divided into two
boroughs, each returning two members; and ten new boroughs were
created, returning one member each, with the exception of Chelsea, to which two were
assigned. By these changes twenty-six seats were taken from
boroughs, while a member was given to the university of London. But before this act came
into operation seven other English boroughs were disfranchised by
the Scottish Reform Act of 1868, these seats being given to
Scotland. Thirteen new divisions of counties were erected, to which
twenty-five members were assigned. In counties the franchise of
copyholders and leaseholders was reduced from £10 to £5, and the
occupation franchise from £so to £12. In boroughs the franchise was
extended to all occupiers of dwelling-houses rated to the
poor-rates, and to lodgers occupying lodgings of the annual value of Do
unfurnished.

By the Scottish Reform Act of 1868, the number of members
representing Scotland was increased from fifty-three to sixty -
three new members being given to the shires, two to the
universities, and two to cities and burghs. The county franchise
was extended to owners of lands and heritages of £5 yearly value,
and to occupiers of the rateable value of £14; and the burgh
franchise to all occupiers of dwelling-houses paying rates, and to
tenants of lodgings of £10 annual value unfurnished.

By the Irish Reform Act of 1868 no change was made in the number
of members nor in the distribution of seats; but the boroughs of Sligo and Cashel, already disfranchised, were still left
without representation. The county franchise was left unchanged;
but the borough franchise was extended to occupiers of houses rated
at £4, and of lodgings of the annual value of £10 unfurnished.

That these changes in the representation - especially the
household suffrage in boroughs - were a notable advance upon the
reforms of 1832, in the direction of democracy, cannot be questioned. The enlarged
constituencies speedily overthrew the ministry to whom these
measures were due; and the new parliament further extended the
recent scheme of reform by granting to electors the protection of
the ballot (q.v.), for which advanced reformers had contended since
1832. Nor was the existing representation long suffered to continue
without question. First, it was proposed, in 1872, to extend the
household franchise to counties, and this proposal found favour in
the country and in the House of Commons; but, the Conservative
party having been restored to power in 1874, no measure of that
character could be promoted with any prospect of success. At the
dissolution of 1880 a more general revision of the representation
was advocated by leading members of the Liberal party, who were
soon restored to power.

(T. E. M.; H.CH.) Acts of 1884-1885. - The Reform Act
of 1884 was ultimately carried with the goodwill of both of the great political
parties. The Conservatives resisted Mr Gladstone's attempt to carry
a great extension of the franchise before he had disclosed his
scheme of redistribution, and the bill was thrown out by the House
of Lords in August 1884. But after a conference of Mr
Gladstone with Lord Salisbury, to whom the whole scheme was
confided, an agreement was reached, and the bill was passed in the
autumn session. In the following session (1885) the Redistribution
Act was passed.

A uniform household and lodger franchise was established in
counties and boroughs. If a dwelling was held as part payment for
service, the occupier was not deprived of his vote because his home
was the property of his master. The obligation was thrown on the overseers of
ascertaining whether any other man besides the owner was entitled
to be registered as an inhabitant occupier, and the owner was bound
to supply the overseers with information. The Registration Acts
were otherwise widely amended. Polling-places were multiplied, so
that little time need be lost in recording a vote. These and other
beneficial changes went a long way towards giving a vote to every
one who had a decent home. By the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885
all boroughs with less than 15,000 inhabitants ceased to return a
member. These small towns were merged into their counties, and the
counties were subdivided into a great number of single-member
constituencies, so that the inhabitants of the disfranchised
boroughs voted for the member for the division of the county in
which they were situated. Boroughs with less than 50,000
inhabitants returning two members were in future to return only
one, and towns of over 10o,000 were divided into separate
constituencies, and received additional members in proportion to
their population. The members for the City of London were reduced
to two, but Greater London, including Croydon, returned sixty. Divided Liverpool
returned nine, Glasgow
seven, Edinburgh, Dublin and Belfast each four, and so on. Six additional
seats were given to England and twelve to Scotland, so that,
allowing for a diminution by disfranchisement for corruption, the
numbers of the House of Commons were raised to 670 members.

Results of Reform since 1832. - From a constitutional
standpoint it is important to recognize the results of the
successive Reform Acts on the working of parliament as regards the
position of the executive on the one hand and the electorate on the
other. Before 1832 the functions of ministers were mainly
administrative, and parliament was able to deal much as it pleased
with their rare legislative proposals without thereby depriving
them of office. Moreover, since before that date ministers were,
generally speaking, in fact as well as in theory appointed by the
king, while the general confidence of the majority in the House of
Commons followed the confidence not so much of the electorate as of
the Crown, that house was able on occasions to exercise an
effective control over foreign policy. Pitt, after 1784, was
defeated several times on foreign and domestic issues, yet his
resignation was neither expected nor desired. In 1788, when the
regency of the prince of Wales appeared probable, and again in
1812, it was generally assumed that it would be in his power to
dismiss his father's ministers and to maintain the Whigs in office
without dissolving parliament. This system, while it gave to
ministers security of tenure,
left much effective freedom of action to the House of Commons. But
the Reform Act of 1832 introduced a new order of things. In 1835
the result of a general election was for the first time the direct
cause of a change of ministry, and in 1841 a House of Commons was
elected for the express purpose of bringing a particular statesman
into power. The electorate voted for Sir Robert Peel, and it would have been as impossible for the
house then elected to deny him their support as it would be for the
college of electors in the United States to exercise their
private judgment in the selection of a president. As time went on,
and the party system became more closely organized in the enlarged
electorate, the voting power throughout the country came to
exercise an increasing influence. The premier was now a party
leader who derived his power in reality neither from the Crown nor
from parliament, but from the electorate, and to the electorate he
could appeal if deserted by his parliamentary majority. Unless it
was prepared to drive him from the office in which it was elected
to support him, that majority would not venture to defeat, or even
seriously to modify, his legislative proposals, or to pass any
censure on his foreign policy, for all such action would now be
held to be equivalent to a vote of no confidence. From the passing
of the Reform Act of 1867 down to 1900 (with a single exception due
to the lowering of the franchise and the redistribution of seats)
the electorate voted alternately for the rival party leaders, and
it was the function of the houses elected for that purpose to pass
the measures and to endorse the general policy with which those
leaders were respectively identified. The cabinet (q.v.), composed
of colleagues selected by the prime minister, had practically, though
indirectly, become an executive committee acting on behalf of the
electorate, that is to say, the majority which returned their party
to office; and the House of Commons practically ceased to exercise
control over ministers except in so far as a revolt in the party
forming the majority could influence the prime minister, or force
him to resign or dissolve. Meanwhile, the virtual identification of
the electorate with the nation by the successive extensions of the
franchise added immensely to its power, the chief limitation being
supplied by the Septennial Act. The House of Lords, whatever its
nominal rights, came henceforth in practice to exercise restriction
rather on the House of Commons than on the will of the electorate,
for the acquiescence of the upper house in the decision of the
electors, when appealed to on a specific point of issue between the
two houses, was gradually accepted by its leaders as a
constitutional convention.

The history of parliament, as an institution, centres in this
later period round two points, (A) the friction between Lords and Commons, resulting
in proposals for the remodelling of the upper house, and (B) the
changes in procedure within the House of Commons, necessitated by
new conditions of work and the desire to make it a more
business-like assembly. These two movements will be discussed
separately.

A. House of Lords Question. - In the altered position
of the House of Lords, the occasional checks given by it to the
House of Commons were bound to cause friction with the
representatives of the people. In the nature of things this was a
matter of importance only when the Liberal party was in power and
measures were proposed by the Liberal leaders which involved such
extreme changes that the preponderantly Conservative upper house
could amend or reject them with some confidence in its action being
supported by the electorate. The frequent differences between the
two houses during the parliament of 1880-1885, culminating in the
postponement by the upper house of the Reform Bill, caused the
status of that house to be much discussed during the general
election of 1885, and proposals for its " mending or ending " to be
freely canvassed on Radical platforms. On the 5th of March 1886 Mr
Labouchere moved a resolution in the House of Commons condemning
the hereditary principle. This was resisted by Mr Gladstone, then
prime minister, on the ground that he had never supported an
abstract resolution unless he was prepared to follow it up by
action, and that the time for this had not arrived. On a division
the motion was negatived by 202 votes against 166. The question of
the constitution of the House of„ Lords was much agitated in 1888.
The Conservatives were again in power, but many of them thought
that it would be prudent to forestall by a moderate reform the more
drastic remedies now openly advocated by their opponents. On the
other hand, Radicals were disposed to resist all changes involving
the maintenance of the hereditary principle, lest they should
thereby strengthen the House of Lords. On the 9th of March Mr
Labouchere again moved his resolution in the House of Commons. Mr
W. H. Smith, the leader of the house, in resisting the motion,
admitted that some changes were desirable, and agreed with a
previous speaker that it was by the Conservatives that such changes
ought to be effected. On the 19th of March in the same year Lord
Rosebery, in the House of Lords, moved for a select committee to
inquire into the subject. He took the opportunity to explain his
own plan of reform. While he did not wish to abolish the hereditary
principle, he desired that no peer, outside the Royal family,
should be a member of the house by right of birth alone. To the
representatives of the peers he proposed to add other men who had
achieved distinction in a public career. He attached a high
importance to the existence of a second chamber. His motion was
negatived by 97 votes against 50. On the 26th of April Lord
Dunraven withdrew a bill for the reform of the House of Lords on
the promise of the government to deal with the matter, and on the
18th of June Lord Salisbury fulfilled this pledge. He introduced a bill on that day to
provide for the creation of a limited number of life peers and for
the exclusion of unworthy members from the house. Under this
measure a maximum of five life-peerages in any one year might be
created, but the total number was never to exceed fifty. In respect
of three out of these five life-peers the choice of the Crown was
restricted to judges, generals, admirals, ambassadors, privy
councillors and exgovernors of colonies. The two additional
life-peers were to be appointed in regard to some special
qualification to be stated in the message to the house announcing
the intention of the Crown to make the appointment. Power was also
to be given to the house to expel members for the period of the
current parliament by an address to the Crown praying that their
writs of summons might be cancelled. The bill was read a second
time on the 10th of July, but it met with a cold reception and was
dropped. The only outcome of all that was written and said in this
year was that in 1889, after the report of a select committee set
up in 1888, the Lords made a few changes in their standing orders,
among which the order establishing a quorum of thirty in divisions
and those for the constitution of standing committees were the most
important.

The parliament which met at Westminster in August 1892 was more
democratic in its tendencies than any of its predecessors. At the
beginning of the session of 1893, in the course of which the Home
Rule Bill was passed by the House of Commons, government bills were
introduced for quinquennial parliaments, for the amendment of
registration, and for the limitation of each elector to a single
vote. The introduction of these bills served merely as a
declaration of government policy, and they were not further
pressed. On the 24th of March a resolution in favour of payment of
members was carried by 276 votes against 229, and again in 1895
by 176 to 158. But the rejection of the Home Rule Bill by the House
of Lords, with the apparent acquiescence of the country, combined
with the retirement of Mr Gladstone to weaken the influence of this
House of Commons, and small importance was attached to its abstract
resolutions. In the ensuing session of 1894 an amendment to the
Address condemning the hereditary principle was moved by Mr
Labouchere, and carried by 147 to 145. The government, however,
holding that this was not the way in which a great question should
be raised, withdrew the Address, and carried another without the
insertion. In his last public utterance Mr Gladstone directed the
attention of his party to the reform of the House of Lords, and
Lord Rosebery endeavoured to concentrate on such a policy the
energies of his supporters at the general election. But the result
of the dissolution of 1895, showing, as it did, that on the chief
political issue of the day the electorate had agreed with the House
of Lords and had disagreed with the House of Commons, greatly
strengthened the upper house, and after that date the subject was
but little discussed until the Liberal party again came into power
ten years later. The House of Lords claimed the right to resist
changes made by the House of Commons until the will of the people
had been definitely declared, and its defenders contended that its
ultimate dependence on the electorate, now generally acknowledged,
rendered the freedom from ministerial control secured to it by its
constitution a national safeguard.

In 1907, under the Radical government of Sir H.
CampbellBannerman (q.v.), the conflict between the Commons and the
Lords again became more acute. And the prime minister in May
obtained a large majority in the lower house for a resolution, on
which a bill was to be founded, involving a complicated method of
overriding the will of the Lords when the Commons had three times
passed a bill. But no further immediate step was taken. In 1908 a
strong committee of the House of Lords with Lord Rosebery as
chairman, which had been appointed in consequence of the
introduction by Lord Newton of
a bill for reforming the constitution of the upper house, presented
an interesting report in favour of largely restricting the
hereditary element and adopting a method of selection.

So the question stood when in 1909 matters came to a head
through the introduction of Mr Lloyd George's budget. It had always
been accepted as the constitutional right of the House of Lords to
reject a financial measure sent up by the Commons but not to amend
it, but the rejection of the budget (which was, in point of form,
referred to the judgment of the electorate) now precipitated a
struggle with the Liberal party, who had persistently denied any
right on the part of the upper house to force a dissolution. The
Liberal leaders contended that, even if constitutional, the claim
of the House of Lords to reject a budget was practically obsolete,
and having been revived must now be formally abolished; and they
went to the country for a mandate to carry their view into law. The
elections of January 1910 gave an unsatisfactory answer, since the
two principal parties, the Liberals and the Unionists, returned
practically equal; but the Liberal government had also on their
side the Irish Nationalist and the Labour parties, which gave them
a majority in the House of Commons if they could concentrate the
combined forces on the House of Lords question. This Mr Asquith
contrived to do; and having introduced and carried through the
House of Commons a series of resolutions defining his proposals, he
had also tabled a bill which was to be sent up to the House of
Lords, when the death of the king suddenly interrupted the course
of the constitutional conflict, and gave a breathing-space for both
sides to consider the possibility of coming to terms. In June Mr
Asquith took the initiative in inviting the leaders of the
Opposition to a conference with closed doors, and a series of
meetings between four representatives of each side were begun. The
government were represented by Mr Asquith, Mr Lloyd
George, Mr Birrell and Lord Crewe. The Unionists were represented by Mr
Balfour,, Lord Lansdowne, Mr AustinChamberlain and Lord Cawdor.

The situation on the Radical side at this juncture may be best
understood by setting out the resolutions passed in the House of
Commons, and the text of the parliament bill of which Mr Asquith
had given notice: The Resolutions. - " i. That it is
expedient that the House of Lords be disabled by law from rejecting
or amending a money bill, but that any such limitation by law shall
not be taken to diminish or qualify the existing rights and
privileges of the House of Commons..

" For the purpose of this resolution, a bill shall be considered
a money bill if in the opinion of the Speaker it contains only
provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects -
namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration or regulation of
taxation; charges on the Consolidated Fund or the provision of
money by parliament; supply; the appropriation, control or
regulation of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or matters
incidental to those subjects or any of them.

" 2. That it is expedient that the powers of the House of
Lords,. as respects bills other than money bills, be restricted by
law, so that any such bill which has passed the House of Commons in
three successive sessions and, having been sent up to the House of
Lords at least one month before the end of the session, has been
rejected by that house in each of those sessions, shall become law
without the consent of the House of Lords, on the royal assent.
being declared: provided that at least two years shall have elapsed
between the date of the first introduction of the bill in the House
of Commons and the date on which it passes the House of Commons for
the third time.

" For the purpose of this resolution a bill shall be treated as
rejected by the House of Lords if it has not been passed by the
House of Lords either without amendment or with such amendments
only as may be agreed upon by both houses.

" 3. That it is expedient to limit the duration of parliament to
five years." The Parliament Bill, 1910. - " Whereas it is
expedient that provision should be made for regulating the
relations between the two Houses of Parliament: And whereas it is
intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present
exists a second chamber constituted on a popular instead of
hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately
brought into operation: And whereas provision will require
hereafter to be made by parliament in a measure effecting such
substitution for limiting and defining the powers of the new
second-chamber, but it is expedient to make such provision as in
this act appears for restricting the existing powers of the House
of Lords: Be it therefore enacted by the king's most excellent
majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual
and temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled,
and by the authority of the same, as follows: " 1. (I) If a money
bill, having been passed by the House of Commons, and sent up to
the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the
session, is not passed by the House of Lords without amendment
within one month after it is so sent up to that house, the bill
shall, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be
presented to His Majesty and become an act of parliament on the
royal assent being signified, notwithstanding that the House of
Lords have not consented to the bill.

" (2) A money bill means a bill which in the opinion of the
Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing
with all or any of the following subjects - namely, the imposition,
repeal, remission, alteration or regulation of taxation; charges on
the consolidated fund or the provision of money by parliament;
supply; the appropriation, control or regulation of public money;
the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or
matters incidental to those subjects or any of them.

" (3) When a bill to which the House of Lords has not consented
is presented to His Majesty for assent as a money bill, the bill
shall be accompanied by a certificate, of the Speaker of the House
of Commons that it is a money bill.

" (4) No amendment shall be allowed to a money bill which, in
the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons, is such as to
prevent the bill retaining the character of a money bill.

" 2. (I) It any bill other than a money bill is passed by the
House of Commons in three successive sessions (whether of the same
parliament or not), and, having been sent up to the House of Lords
at least one month before the end of the session, is rejected by
the House of Lords in each of those sessions, that bill shall, on
its rejection for the third time by the House of Lords, unless the
House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to His
Majesty and become an act of parliament on the royal assent being
signified thereto, notwithstanding that the House of Lords has not
consented to the bill: provided that this provision shall not take
effect unless two years have elapsed between the date of the first
introduction of the bill in the House of Commons and the date on
which it passes the House of Commons for the third time.

" (2) A bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of
Lords if it is not passed by the House of Lords either without
amendment or with such amendments only as may be agreed to by both
houses.

" (3) A bill shall be deemed to be the same bill as a former
bill sent up to the House of Lords in the preceding session if,
when it is sent up to the House of Lords, it is identical with the
former bill or contains only such alterations as are certified by
the Speaker of the House of Commons to be necessary owing to the
time which has elapsed since the date of the former bill, or to
represent amendments which have been made by the House of Lords in
the former bill in the preceding session.

" Provided that the House of Commons may, if they think fit, on
the passage of such a bill through the house in the second or third
session, suggest any further amendments without inserting the
amendments in the bill, and any such suggested amendments shall be
considered by the House of Lords, and if agreed to by that house,
shall be treated as amendments made by the House of Lords and
agreed to by the House of Commons; but the exercise of this power
by the House of Commons shall not affect the operation of this
section in the event of the bill being rejected by the House of
Lords.

" 3. Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons
given under this act shall be conclusive for all purposes, and
shall not be questioned in any court of law.

" 4. Nothing in this act shall diminish or qualify the existing
rights and privileges of the House of Commons.

5. Five years shall be substituted for seven years
as the time fixed for the maximum duration of parliament under the
Septennial Act 1715." Meanwhile, in the House of Lords, Lord
Rosebery had carried three resolutions declaring certain principles
for the reform of the second chamber, which were assented to by the
Unionist leaders; the policy opposed to that of the government thus
became that of willingness for reform of the constitution of the
Upper Chamber, but not for abolition of its powers.

Lord Rosebery's Resolutions

(1) " That a strong and efficient Second Chamber is not
merely an integral part of the British Constitution, but is
necessary to the well-being of the State and to the balance of
Parliament." (2) " Such a Chamber can best be obtained by the
reform and reconstitution of the House of Lords." (3) " That a
necessary preliminary to such reform and reconstitution is the
acceptance of the principle that the possession of a peerage should
no longer of itself give the right to sit and vote in the House of
Lords." During the summer and autumn the private meetings between
the eight leaders were continued, until twenty had been held. But
on the 10th of November Mr Asquith issued a brief statement that
the conference on the constitutional question had come to an end,
without arriving at an agreement. Within a few days he announced
that another appeal would at once be made to the electorate. The
Parliament Bill was hurriedly introduced into the House of Lords,
with a statement by Lord Crewe that no amendments would be
accepted. The dissolution was fixed for the 28th of November. Time
was short for any declaration of policy by the Unionist peers, but
it was given shape at once, first by the adoption of a further
resolution moved by Lord Rosebery for the remodelling of the Upper
House, and secondly by Lord Lansdowne's shelving the Parliament
Bill by coupling the adjournment of the debate on it with the
adoption of resolutions providing for the settlement of differences
between a reconstituted Upper House and the House of
Commons.

Lord Rosebery's additional resolution provided that " in future
the House of Lords shall consist of Lords of Parliament: (a) chosen
by the whole body of hereditary peers from among themselves and by
nomination by the Crown; (b) sitting by virtue of offices
and of qualifications held by them; (c) chosen from
outside." The Lansdowne resolutions provided in effect that, when
the House of Lords had been " reconstituted and reduced in numbers
" in accordance with Lord Rosebery's plan, (I) any differences
arising between the two houses with regard to a Bill other than a
Money Bill, in two successive sessions, and within an interval of
not less than one year, should be settled, if not adjustable
otherwise, in a joint sitting composed of members of both houses,
except in the case of " a matter which is of great gravity and has
not been adequately submitted to the judgment of the people," which
should then be " submitted for decision to the electors by Referendum "; (2) and as
to Money Bills, the Lords were prepared to forgo their
constitutional right of rejection or amendment, if effectual
provision were made against " tacking," the decision whether other
than financial matters were dealt with in the Bill resting with a
joint committee of both Houses, with the Speaker of the House of
Commons as chairman, having a casting vote only.

The general election took place in December, and resulted
practically in no change from the previous situation. Both sides
won and lost seats, and the eventual numbers were: Liberals 272,
Labour 42, Irish Nationalists 84 (8 being " independents" following Mr William O'Brien), Unionists 272.
Thus, including the doubtful votes of the 8 Independent
Nationalists, Mr Asquith retained an apparent majority of 126 for
the ministerial policy, resting as it did on the determination of
the Irish Nationalists to pave the way for Home Rule by destroying
the veto of the House of Lords.

B. House of Commons Internal Reforms. - We have already
sketched the main lines of English parliamentary procedure. Until
the forms of the House of Commons were openly utilized to delay the
progress of government business by what became known as "
obstruction " the changes made in the years following 1832 were
comparatively insignificant. They consisted in (I) the
discontinuance of superfluous forms, questions and amendments; (2)
restrictions of debates upon questions of form; (3) improved
arrangements for the distribution of business; (4) the delegation
of some of the minor functions of the house to committees and
officers of the house; and (5) increased publicity in the
proceedings of the house. But with the entry of Mr Parnell and his
Irish Nationalist followers into parliament (1875-1880) a new era
began in the history of the House of Commons. Their tactics were to
oppose all business of whatever kind, and at all hours.

It was not until February 1880 that the house so far overcame
its reluctance to restrict liberty of discussion as to pass, in its
earliest form, the rule dealing with " order in debate." It
provided that whenever a member was named by the Speaker or
chairman as " disregarding the authority of the chair, or abusing
the rules of the house by persistently and wilfully obstructing the
rules of the house," a motion might be made, to be decided without
amendment or debate, for his suspension from the service of the
house during the remainder of the sitting; and that if the same
member should be suspended three times in one session, his
suspension on the third occasion should continue for a week, and
until a motion had been made upon which it should be decided, at
one sitting, by the house, whether the suspension should then cease
or not. The general election, which took place two months later,
restored Mr Gladstone to power and to the leadership of the house.
Mr Parnell returned to parliament with a more numerous following,
and resumed his former tactics. In January 1881 the Protection of
Persons and Property (Ireland) Bill was introduced. For twenty-two
hours Parnell fought the motion giving precedence to the bill, and
for four sittings its introduction. The fourth sitting lasted
fortyone hours. Then Mr Speaker Brand intervened, and declined to
call on any other member who might rise to address the house,
because repeated dilatory
motions had been supported by small minorities in opposition to the
general sense of the house. He added: " A crisis has thus arisen
which demands the prompt interposition of the chair and of the
house. The usual rules have proved powerless to ensure orderly and
effective debate. An important measure, recommended by Her Majesty
nearly a month since, and declared to be urgent in the interests of
the state by a decisive majority, is being arrested by the action
of an inconsiderable minority, the members of which have resorted
to those modes of obstruction which have been recognized by the
house as a parliamentary offence. The dignity, the credit, and the
authority of this house are seriously threatened, and it is
necessary they should be vindicated.... Future measures for
ensuring orderly debate I must leave to the judgment of the house.
But the house must either assume more effectual control over its
debates, or entrust greater powers to the chair." The Speaker then
put the question, which was carried by an overwhelming majority.
Then followed the decisive struggle. Mr Gladstone gave notice for
the next day (Feb. 3) of an urgency rule, which ordered, " That if
the house shall resolve by a majority of three to one that the
state of public business is urgent, the whole power of the house to
make rules shall be and remain with the Speaker until he shall
declare that the state of public business is no longer urgent." On
the next day a scene of great disorder ended in the suspension of
the Nationalist members, at first singly, and afterwards in groups.
The urgency rule was then passed without further difficulty, and
the house proceeded to resolve, " That the state of public business
is urgent." The Speaker laid upon the table rules of sufficient
stringency, and while they remained in force progress in public
business was possible. During this session the Speaker had to
intervene on points of order 935 times, and the chairman of
committees 939 times; so that, allowing only five minutes on each
occasion, the wrangling between the chair and members occupied 150
hours.

The events of the session of 1881 and the direct appeal of the
Speaker to the house proved the necessity of changes in the rules
of procedure more drastic than had hitherto been proposed.
Accordingly, in the first week of the session of 1882 Mr Gladstone
laid his proposals on the table, and in moving the first resolution
on 10th February, he reviewed, in an eloquent speech, the history
of the standing orders. It was his opinion, on general grounds,
that the house should settle
its own procedure, but he showed that the numerous committees
which, since 1832, had sat on the subject, had failed for the most
part to carry their recommendations into effect from the lack of
the requisite " propelling power," and he expressed his regret that
the concentration of this power in the hands of the government had
rendered it necessary that they should undertake a task not
properly theirs. He noted two main features in the history of the
case: (r) the constantly increasing labours of the house, and (2)
its constantly decreasing power to despatch its duties; and while
he declared that " the fundamental change which has occurred is
owing to the passing of the first great Reform Bill," he pointed
out that the strain had not
become intolerable till the development in recent years of
obstructive tactics. He defined obstruction as " the disposition
either of the minority of the house, or of individuals, to resist
the prevailing will of the house otherwise than by argument," and
reached the conclusion that the only remedy for a state of things
by which the dignity and efficiency of the house were alike
compromised, was the adoption in a carefully guarded form of the
process known on the Continent as the " cloture." He explained that
in his early years the house was virtually possessed of a closing
power, because it was possessed of a means of sufficiently making
known its inclinations; and to those inclinations uniform deference
was paid by members, but that since this moral sanction had ceased
to be operative, it was necessary to substitute for it a written
law. The power to close debate had been of necessity assumed by
almost all the European and American assemblies, the conduct of
whose members was shaped by no traditional considerations; and the
entry into parliament of a body of men to whom the traditions of
the house were as nothing made it necessary for the House of
Commons to follow this example. He proposed, therefore, that when
it appeared to the Speaker, or to the chairman of committees,
during any debate to be the evident sense of the house, or of the
committee, that the question be now put, he might so inform the
house, and that thereupon on a motion being made, " That the
question be now put," the question under discussion should be
forthwith put from the chair, and decided in the affirmative if
supported by more than 200 members, or, when less than 40 members
had voted against it, by more than ioo members. This resolution was
vehemently contested by the opposition, who denounced it as an
unprecedented interference with the liberty of debate, but was
eventually carried in the autumn session of the same year, after a
discussion extending over nineteen sittings.

On the 20th of November the standing order of the 28th of
February 1880, providing for the suspension of members who
persistently and wilfully obstructed the business of the house or
disregarded the authority of the chair, was amended by the increase
of the penalty to suspension
on the first occasion for one week, on the second occasion for a
fortnight, and on the third,, or any subsequent occasion, for a
month. The other rules, framed with a view to freeing the wheels of
the parliamentary machine, and for the most part identical with the
regulations, adopted by Mr Speaker Brand under the urgency
resolution of 1881, were carried in the course of the autumn
session, and became standing orders on the 27th of November.

Mr Gladstone's closure rule verified neither the hopes of its.
supporters nor the fears of its opponents. It was not put into
operation until the 10th of February 1885, when the Speaker's
declaration of the evident sense of the house was ratified by a
majority of 207 - a margin of but seven votes over the necessary
quorum. It was clear that no Speaker was likely to run the risk of
a rebuff by again assuming the initiative unless in the face of
extreme urgency, and, in fact, the rule was enforced twice only
during the five years of its existence.

In 1887 the Conservative government, before the introduction of
a new Crimes Act for Ireland, gave efficiency to the rule by an
important amendment. They proposed that any member during a debate
might claim to move, " That the question be now put," and that with
the consent of the chair this question should be put forthwith, and
decided without amendment or debate. Thus the initiative was
transferred from the Speaker to the house. Mr Gladstone objected
strongly to this alteration, chiefly on the ground that it would
throw an unfair burden of responsibility upon the Speaker, who
would now have to decide on a question of opinion, whereas under
the old rule he was only called upon to determine a question of
evident fact. The alternative most generally advocated by the
opposition was the automatic closure by a bare majority at the end
of each sitting, an arrangement by which the chair would be
relieved from an invidious responsibility; but it was pointed out
that under such a system the length of debates would not vary with
the importance of the questions debated. After fourteen sittings
the closure rule was passed on the r8th of March and made a
standing order.

In the next session, on the 28th of February 1888, the rule was
yet further strengthened by the reduction of the majority necessary
for its enforcement from 200 to 100, the closure rule remaining as
follows: - That, after a question has been proposed, a member
rising in his place may claim to move, " That the question be now
put," and, unless it shall appear to the chair that such motion is
an abuse of the rules of the house or an infringement of the rights
of the minority, the question, " That the question be now put,"
shall be put forthwith, and decided without amendment or
debate.

When the motion " That the question be now put " has been
carried, and the question consequent thereon has been decided, any
further motion may be made (the assent of the chair as aforesaid
not having been withheld), which may be requisite to bring to a
decision any question already proposed from the chair; and also if
a clause be then under consideration, a motion may be made (the
assent of the chair as aforesaid not having been withheld), " That
the question ' That certain words of the clause defined in the
motion stand part of the clause,' or ' That the clause stand part
of, or be added to, the bill,' be now put." Such motions shall be
put forthwith, and decided without amendment or debate.

That questions for the closure of debate shall be decided in the
affirmative, if, when a division be taken, it appears by the
numbers declared from the chair that not less than one hundred
members voted in the majority in support of the motion.

The closure, originally brought into being to defeat the tactics
of obstruction in special emergencies, thus became a part of
parliamentary routine. And, the principle being The once
accepted, its operation was soon extended. Guillotine. The
practice of retarding the progress of govern ment measures by
amendments moved to every line, adopted by both the great political
parties when in opposition, led to the use of what became known as
the " guillotine," for forcing through parliament important bills,
most of the clauses in which were thus undiscussed. The "
guillotine," means that the house decides how much time shall be
devoted to certain stages of a measure, definite dates being laid
down at which the closure shall be enforced and division taken. On
the 17th of June 1887, after prolonged debates on the Crimes Bill
in committee, clause 6 only having been reached, the remaining 14
clauses were put without discussion, and the bill was reported in
accordance with previous notice. This was the first use of the "
guillotine," but the precedent was followed by Mr Gladstone in
1893, when many of the clauses of the Home Rule Bill were carried
through committee and on report by the same machinery. To the
Conservatives must be imputed the invention of this method of
legislation, to their opponents the use of it for attempting to
carry a great constitutional innovation to which the majority of
English and Scottish representatives were opposed, and subsequently
its extension and development (1906-1909) as a regular part of the
legislative machinery.

The principle of closure has been extended even to the debates
on supply. The old rule, that the redress of grievances should
ule. precede the granting of money, dating from a time
when the minister of the Crown was so far from commanding the
confidence of the majority in the House of Commons that he was the
chief object of their attacks, nevertheless continued to govern the
proceedings of the house in relation to supply without much
resultant inconvenience, until the period when the new methods
adopted by the Irish Nationalist party created a new situation.
Until 1872 it continued to be possible to discuss any subject by an
amendment to the motion for going into supply. In that year a
resolution was passed limiting the amendments to matters relevant
to the class of estimates about to be considered, and these
relevant amendments were further restricted to the first day on
which it was proposed to go into committee. This resolution was
continued in 1873, but was allowed to drop in 1874. It was revived
in a modified form in 1876, but was again allowed to drop in 1877.
In 1879, on the recommendation of the Northcote committee, it was
provided in a sessional order that whenever the committees of
supply or of ways and means stood as the first order on a Monday, the Speaker should leave
the chair without question put, except on first going into
committee on the army, navy and civil service
estimates respectively. In 1882 Thursday was added to Monday for
the purposes of the order, and, some further exceptions having been
made to the operation of the rule, it became a standing order. The
conditions, however, under which the estimates were voted remained
unsatisfactory. The most useful function of the opposition is the
exposure of abuses in the various departments of administration,
and this can best be performed upon the estimates. But ministers,
occupied with their legislative proposals, were irresistibly
tempted to postpone the consideration of the estimates until the
last weeks of the session, when they were hurried through thin
houses, the members of which were impatient to be gone. To meet
this abuse, and to distribute the time with some regard to the
comparative importance of the subjects discussed, Mr Balfour in
1896 proposed and carried a sessional order for the closure of
supply, a maximum of twenty-three days being given to its
consideration, of which the last three alone might be taken after
the 5th of August. On the last but one of the allotted days at io
o'clock the chairman was to put the outstanding votes, and on the
last day the Speaker was to put the remaining questions necessary
.to complete the reports of supply. In 1901 Mr Balfour so altered
the resolution that the question was put, not with respect to each
vote, but to each class of votes in the Civil Service estimates,
and to the total amounts of the outstanding votes in the army, navy
and revenue estimates.

It is only possible here to refer briefly to some other changes
in the procedure of the house which altered in various respects its
character as a business-like assembly. The chief Other of
these is as regards the hours. On Mondays, Changes in
Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays the house Methods.
meets at 2.45 p.m., " questions " beginning at 3 and ending (apart
from urgency) at 3.45; and opposed business ends at 11. On Fridays
the house meets at 12 noon, and
opposed business is suspended at 5 p.m.; this is the only day when
government business has not precedence, and private members' bills
have the first call, though at 8.15 p.m. on Tuesdays and Wednesdays
up to Easter and on Wednesdays up to Whitsuntide the business is
interrupted in order that private members' motions may be taken.
These arrangements, which only date from 1906, represent a
considerable change from the old days before 1879 when the standing
order was formed that no opposed business, with certain exceptions,
should be taken after 12.30 a.m., or 1888 when the closing hour was
fixed at midnight. In fact the hours of the house have become
generally earlier. Another important change has been made as
regards motions for the adjournment of the house, which used to
afford an opportunity to the private members at any time to discuss
matters of urgent importance. Since 1902 no motion for the
adjournment of the house can be made until all " questions " have
been disposed of, and then, if forty members support it, the debate
takes place at 8.15 p.m. This alteration has much modified the
character of the debates on such motions, which used to be taken
when feelings were hot, whereas now there is time for reflection.
In other respects the most noticeable thing in the recent evolution of the House of
Commons has been its steady loss of power, as an assembly, in face
of the control of the government and party leaders. In former times
the private members had far larger opportunities for introducing
and carrying bills, which now have no chance, unless the government affords "
facilities "; and the great f unction of debating " supply " has largely been
restricted by the closure, under which millions of money are voted
without debate. The house is still ruled by technical rules of
procedure which are, in the main, dilatory and obstructive, and
hamper the expression of views which are distasteful to the Whips
or to the government, who can by them arrange the business so as to
suit their convenience. It is true indeed that this dilatory
character of the proceedings assists to encourage debate, within
limits; but with the influx of a new class of representatives,
especially the Labour members, there has been in recent years a
rather pronounced feeling that the procedure of the house might
well be drastically revised with the object of making it a more
business-like assembly. Reform of the House of Commons has been
postponed to some extent because reform of the House of Lords has,
to professed reformers, been a better " cry "; but when reform is
once " in the air " in parliament it
is not likely to stop, with so large a field of antiquated
procedure before it as is represented by many of the traditional
methods of the House of Commons. (H. CH.)

A parliament is a type of legislature . The most famous parliament is probably the one in the United Kingdom, which is sometimes called the "Mother of all Parliaments" [this phrase was originally used as a criticism in the 19th century - as in "this parliament is of the old generation". Nowadays, people tend to assume it is a compliment, as in "it was one of the first parliaments and many other countries have set their own up in the same way"]. The word "parliament" comes from the French word parlement, which means a talk.

Contents

How the British Parliament works

The Parliament of the United Kingdom is split into three separate parts, the House of Commons (the lower house), the lords (the upper house) and the Monarch. Most legislative power concentrated in the House of Commons. It is made up of 646 Members of Parliament (MPs). These people are elected by the people of the United Kingdom to represent them in the House of Commons. The leader of the political party who commands a majority of MPs is usually made the Prime Minister, but not the Head of State, a position reserved for the Sovereign. The House of Commons starts most Bills, the remainder originating in the House of Lords, and decides rates of taxation as a result of election by the other hereditary peers and two other hereditary peers who have ceremonial jobs in the House of Lords. They are the Earl Marshal who is always the Duke of Norfolk and the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Marquess of Cholmondeley. The House of Lords has the power to reject Bills, except Money Bills (tax bills), and make the House of Commons reconsider them. If the House of Lords vetoes a bill twice or delays a public Bill for more than one year then the House of Commons can force the Bill through under the terms of the Parliament Acts, unless it originated in the House of Lords.
The monarch (now HM Queen Elizabeth II) is the sovereign in a constitutional monarchy and, theoretically, is the fount of all power in the United Kingdom. Bills must receive the Royal Assent before becoming Acts of Parliament and the monarch is responsible for summoning, proroguing and dissolving Parliament, normally upon the advice of the incumbent Prime Minister. It is now very rare for a monarch to object, but the sovereign still retains this prerogative for use if necessary.

Other parliaments

Other parliaments have copied the UK and are a lot like it. They have three levels - a lower house which makes the law, an upper house which reviews the law (Decides if they like it or not, and suggest changes to it), and a head of state who is mostly for show and who starts and ends each year of parliament. The Prime Minister is almost always the person whose party has the most seats, but if the lower house does not think he is doing a good job they can call a vote of no confidence and ask him to leave his job as Prime Minister or have an election.

The word "parliament"

Sometimes people use the word "parliament" to describe a legislature, even if it is not a real parliament. A "parliament" is a type of legislature which has a Prime Minister.

Similar to a congress

A parliament is a lot like a congress but a congress cannot ask the head of the government to leave his job. Also, a congress runs for a number of years according to the country's constitution, but a parliament can be stopped as long as enough members agree. Elections are held after this happens.